Where on God's green earth did the $900 million figure evolve.

Surely it's got to come from somewhere like arena specifications and site acquisition and preparation.

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.

Im not sure you should be the one telling others how to behave.

There’s a issue when people speak so matter of fact and attempt to dissuade others under the guise of educating them. You’re ok with his posts because it’s in agreement with your narrative anyone else you’ve personally attacked.

There is a issue with transparency here and public discussion is how it’s addressed. The entire approach is flawed if we have a either or vote in front of us. $900M blank check or the Thunder leave. The city and mayor might’ve failed in their strategy of using the popularity of MAPS to try and shroud the behind the scenes negotiations/discussions. This isn’t a MAPS project and the marketing is creating confusion.

His fundamental point is it has to be handled this way due to the civic responsibilities and obligations. My view is we’re intentionally restricting access to behind the scenes information based on a belief there is a greater likelihood it passes. Along with the approach/strategy for carrying out the vote. However, the public deserves more on a vote of this magnitude.

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.

Very good point and question. Thinking back to the Seattle debacle, Clay Bennett DID get out there and tried to get support for an arena (multiple times/locations - Seattle then KeyArena, Renton Arena, Bellevue Arena - all had renderings and price points/locations made to the public), including having renderings yet was shot down by the elitism up here; irregardless of A McLendon's desire (and likely the ownership group's all along) to have a team in OKC. They did try to get one here and were transparent about it.

Why he's not doing anything in OKC is beyond me. Furthermore, it is ONLY the mayor of Oklahoma City who said the city might lose the team if the vote didnt pass. Bennett and Co didn't say anything indicating as much. Again, why are the Thunder not saying/doing anything is beyond me. And furthermore, why the Chamber isn't doing anything to ensure passage (like conceptual renderings, announcing the location to justify urgency) is beyond me.

This whole thing, thinking, approach on this is beyond me. Yes, I want OKC to have a new arena that competes if not excels all other NBA arenas. I know this will be multi billion to do so, but should create a Thunder Alley district, ala LA Live. But why not say this, Thunder/Chamber? Why leaving it up to the mayor of OKC to try to scare everybody into voting yes, when voters really don't know what they're approving. ... Again, every other city had at least conceptual renderings before a vote, particularly billion $$.. (and let me chime in again before Urbanized - the TEAM or CHAMBER could produce at least conceptual renderings of what the Oklahoma City arena and district could be; that wouldn't violate the city's fiduciary obligation not to spend dollars promoting this - that's why we have a chamber).

I don't get it. They could do more to ensure the vote is a smashing YES. But they're almost seem to encourage the NO to be more than just the people who always vote No.

EXACTLY Larry. How did they come up with minimum $900m? In my opinion, an arena in OKC, even a lavish one, should cost less than $500m. So is the $900m+ because

1) it will be located at the Myriad superblock? which means the myriad needs to be torn down and (since the superblock site is way bigger than even the biggest arena) the rest of the site will be developed into a Thunder Alley (LA Live type district)?

and

2) because of it's location, construction needs to start almost immediately since the current building needs to be removed?

and

3) this new arena will belong to OKC and will be built large enough to be reconfigured without the city having to build a new building again? And the building will have larger/multiple loading docks incorporated so the arena can be functional similar to LA's with back-to-back events?

therefore with all of this in mind, we arrived at $1.25 billion consisting of a team contribution of $50m to cover interest payments, $75m withheld from MAPS IV, and $900m for a 6 year extension of the 1 cent tax starting when MAPS IV ends.

If they would state these, Im sure the YES vote will go up from probably 51% today to 89%. Why not go for it, put the doubters, sharks from other cities, and nay-sayers to rest. Go BIG and prove to the world that OKC is a major player (might enhance that Olympic push)? Why be so quiet with this, now less than 1.5 months to the vote? I don't get it, nor do I get how they "negotiated" $900m.

Very good point and question. Thinking back to the Seattle debacle, Clay Bennett DID get out there and tried to get support for an arena (multiple times/locations - Seattle then KeyArena, Renton Arena, Bellevue Arena - all had renderings and price points/locations made to the public), including having renderings yet was shot down by the elitism up here; irregardless of A McLendon's desire (and likely the ownership group's all along) to have a team in OKC. They did try to get one here and were transparent about it.

Why he's not doing anything in OKC is beyond me. Furthermore, it is ONLY the mayor of Oklahoma City who said the city might lose the team if the vote didnt pass. Bennett and Co didn't say anything indicating as much. Again, why are the Thunder not saying/doing anything is beyond me. And furthermore, why the Chamber isn't doing anything to ensure passage (like conceptual renderings, announcing the location to justify urgency) is beyond me.

This whole thing, thinking, approach on this is beyond me. Yes, I want OKC to have a new arena that competes if not excels all other NBA arenas. I know this will be multi billion to do so, but should create a Thunder Alley district, ala LA Live. But why not say this, Thunder/Chamber? Why leaving it up to the mayor of OKC to try to scare everybody into voting yes, when voters really don't know what they're approving. ... Again, every other city had at least conceptual renderings before a vote, particularly billion $$.. (and let me chime in again before Urbanized - the TEAM or CHAMBER could produce at least conceptual renderings of what the Oklahoma City arena and district could be; that wouldn't violate the city's fiduciary obligation not to spend dollars promoting this - that's why we have a chamber).

I don't get it. They could do more to ensure the vote is a smashing YES. But they're almost seem to encourage the NO to be more than just the people who always vote No.

I share all of your thoughts.

This reminds me of when a popular incumbent has a challenger and they just decide not to debate. The candidate thinks they have more to lose by being upstaged on a debate platform than they gain, so they sit it out and win on name recognition.

Maybe the powerrs that be (Thunder/Chamber/Holt) have all decided that this is going to pass so no need to get people upset at the Thunder by having them threaten anything. Let Holt suck up the negativity, this thing passes anyway, and the Thunder walk away smelling like a rose.

At least I suspect that is the strategy here. Only time will tell if it was the correct one.

Im not sure you should be the one telling others how to behave.

There’s a issue when people speak so matter of fact and attempt to dissuade others under the guise of educating them. You’re ok with his posts because it’s in agreement with your narrative anyone else you’ve personally attacked.

There is a issue with transparency here and public discussion is how it’s addressed. The entire approach is flawed if we have a either or vote in front of us. $900M blank check or the Thunder leave. The city and mayor might’ve failed in their strategy of using the popularity of MAPS to try and shroud the behind the scenes negotiations/discussions. This isn’t a MAPS project and the marketing is creating confusion.

His fundamental point is it has to be handled this way due to the civic responsibilities and obligations. My view is we’re intentionally restricting access to behind the scenes information based on a belief there is a greater likelihood it passes. Along with the approach/strategy for carrying out the vote. However, the public deserves more on a vote of this magnitude.

Hey if some of the people I’ve been an ass to brought any unbiased useful information about how the city works into the discussion instead of repeating the same dumb talking points over and over again, I probably wouldn’t be an ass. Example: I’ve never been an ass to Pete on this because he brings good information without an obvious agenda

I’m okay with Urbanized’s posts because I am aware how much more he knows about all of this than some of you broken records debating him apparently do.

Where on God's green earth did the $900 million figure evolve.

Surely it's got to come from somewhere like arena specifications and site acquisition and preparation.

I'll say it again and not anymore.

Post-Covid construction costs have exploded. Everything is basically 2X what it was in 2019 especially anything non residential. This is a highly customized one off building with massive amounts of specialized mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems in it, most of which have significant supply chain issues to deal with.

I'll say it again and not anymore.

Post-Covid construction costs have exploded. Everything is basically 2X what it was in 2019 especially anything non residential. This is a highly customized one off building with massive amounts of specialized mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems in it, most of which have significant supply chain issues to deal with.

I think he’s saying that number has more modeling, planning, scope of work to it than the public has seen. The question is why can’t the public have visibility into those facts?

Clay Bennetts official statement on the city website:
“We now have an opportunity to build on that progress, advance our status as a true big-league City, continue to grow our economy and secure the long-term future of the Thunder. We look forward to continuing our partnership with Mayor Holt, members of the City Council, and the forward-thinking business and civic leaders in our community. Together we can develop an arena to serve as a crowning achievement in the ongoing renaissance of Oklahoma City.”

Keyword in his statement “together”. We’re essentially voting through funding for an arena without any public insight into how the private third party that’s dictating it will be a steward of our generous funds.

Ex. Would it matter if the owners suite was decked out with amenities in lieu of funding for streetscaping. There’s a possibility we end up with additional oversights like we have with the Paycom on the loading docks. Apparently the city didn’t fully understand how to plan for that. That doesn’t instill confidence in their abilities.

Ex. Would it matter if the owners suite was decked out with amenities in lieu of funding for streetscaping. There’s a possibility we end up with additional oversights like we have with the Paycom on the loading docks. Apparently the city didn’t fully understand how to plan for that. That doesn’t instill confidence in their abilities.

Your last two sentences are spot on, imo. The city routinely shows its ass on big projects (streetcar) by trying to reinvent the wheel or value engineer it out. I don’t have a lot of faith in them to plan this one much better.

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.

If it’s true that ownership would immediately sell based on a single no vote of an the extremely one-sided deal, then this ownership group really are despicable people with no interest in the OKC community. They’re just here for corporate welfare to enrich themselves.

I say this as someone who probably would vote yes. But your claims—and I trust your judgment—have made me lose all respect for the owners.

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

I'm sorry, but can you imagine the utter futility of such a process? I mean, is this a serious question?

If it’s true that ownership would immediately sell based on a single no vote of an the extremely one-sided deal, then this ownership group really are despicable people with no interest in the OKC community. They’re just here for corporate welfare to enrich themselves.

I say this as someone who probably would vote yes. But your claims—and I trust your judgment—have made me lose all respect for the owners.

Agreed. That's probably the worst part of this whole deal.

What happened in Seattle is one thing, but trying to put the screws to your hometown -- is quite another.

If $900 million will make our new arena among the Top five arenas in the NBA and the concert industry, let's get the ball rolling.

We all want to see what our new arena will look like. Build for our city's future as a staple in the NBA.

Your last two sentences are spot on, imo. The city routinely shows its ass on big projects (streetcar) by trying to reinvent the wheel or value engineer it out. I don’t have a lot of faith in them to plan this one much better.

The city absolutely maximized the budge on the original arena design. You no doubt forget or didn’t know what a deal the city got. And, didn’t the streetcar have a citizen’s commIttee to help plan?

I'll say it again and not anymore.

Post-Covid construction costs have exploded. Everything is basically 2X what it was in 2019 especially anything non residential. This is a highly customized one off building with massive amounts of specialized mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems in it, most of which have significant supply chain issues to deal with.

Post covid, OKANA Resort and Water Park construction was estimated at $300 million--it went up to $400 million, a 25% increase.

I'll take a line from you, and I'll say this again, where are the specifications to justify a $900 million new downtown arena when we don't have any idea where it will be located downtown and how much square footage this mammoth will occupy.

I'm all for a new arena, one that will be among the Top five in the NBA. If $900 million will get us there, this will be an investment of a lifetime. Now it looks as though all posters who are arguing among ourselves--a good sign OKC voters are paying attention.

If it’s true that ownership would immediately sell based on a single no vote of an the extremely one-sided deal, then this ownership group really are despicable people with no interest in the OKC community. They’re just here for corporate welfare to enrich themselves.

I say this as someone who probably would vote yes. But your claims—and I trust your judgment—have made me lose all respect for the owners.

I’m a little skeptical that we’d only get one shot at this as well…I just think the ownership group wants the team to work here more than they want to sell it but the chance is there and it just doesn’t seem worth risking it. And for what? $50-$100 million more from the owners or knocked off the price? How is that worth it? (More of a rhetorical question since you said you’d probably be a yes vote as it stands)

If you're inclined to trust Urbanized (which is something I hope most on this board would be inclined toward) - the message between the lines is that the team is already all but sold. The $50M is a parting gift from the ownership group to the city and they will sign a long-term lease in hopes that the team stays permanently.

We can talk all day long about precedent and how a team breaking a lease and moving a team has never happened, but at the end of the day, we're betting $1.5B that it won't. That's an exposure to risk that I'm not sure any major business owner would take with their own business. Unless we're writing the lease in such a way that Oklahoma Judges have signed-off on as iron clad in an Oklahoma court of law to prevent the team from moving, then we're placing a lot of faith that a future owner who doesn't care about OKC would not find a legal loophole to go find more profitable pastures. At the end of the day, this arena will only increase profitability to ownership so much given it's still located in Oklahoma City and is limited by the economy of its individual and business population, both of which substantially lag behind the alternative cities to which a future owner might want to move the team.

If you're inclined to trust Urbanized (which is something I hope most on this board would be inclined toward) - the message between the lines is that the team is already all but sold. The $50M is a parting gift from the ownership group to the city and they will sign a long-term lease in hopes that the team stays permanently.

We can talk all day long about precedent and how a team breaking a lease and moving a team has never happened, but at the end of the day, we're betting $1.5B that it won't. That's an exposure to risk that I'm not sure any major business owner would take with their own business. Unless we're writing the lease in such a way that Oklahoma Judges have signed-off on as iron clad in an Oklahoma court of law to prevent the team from moving, then we're placing a lot of faith that a future owner who doesn't care about OKC would not find a legal loophole to go find more profitable pastures. At the end of the day, this arena will only increase profitability to ownership so much given it's still located in Oklahoma City and is limited by the economy of its individual and business population, both of which substantially lag behind the alternative cities to which a future owner might want to move the team.

Are you reading posts from an alternate reality? Maybe I have missed something.

Are you reading posts from an alternate reality? Maybe I have missed something.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? You don't believe that Urbanized has implied the team is likely going to be sold regardless of the vote?

^^^^^^^^^^
To be abundantly clear: I am absolutely NOT saying that I think the team is sold, or even that owners are thinking about selling. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but at the same time, please don’t put words into my mouth.

What I AM saying is that I believe the ownership group has taken stock of its own mortality. They’ve already had one primary member of the ownership group die, and Clay Bennett clearly had his own scare. I believe they are a well-intentioned group, who is only trying to secure this team in this city for a generation to come. Extended until a time when ownership will have changed hands, if only due to the mortality to which we all are subjected.

I believe they are trying to put the team on an extended path of profitability, or at the very least ensure that the team won’t be losing money no matter the future of CBAs and TV deals.

Do I think they’ll sell? Yeah…I think at least some of them will be happy to sell once the future (and their legacies) have been secured. Probably after the building opens we could expect to see some shuffling as some members take their reward for the work they’ve put into this since they bought the team all of the way back in 2006.

But I seriously doubt they are sitting around with pens in their hands and closing documents on the desk.

All of that said, if the vote fails I’d suspect they will give serious consideration to taking one of the numerous deals that will 100% be immediately presented. What folks don’t seem to get is that keeping this team in OKC is NOT maximizing its ROI. Their very best ROI by far would be to sell this team to someone from another market, eager to pay over value to bring a team to their own city.

Beating your head against the wall, trying repeatedly to convince a marginal market to keep their only big league franchise in town, all for a pay cut vs potential value? And potentially losing money while they grovel for a few years, with no guarantees? I wouldn’t do that, either. Would you?

^^^^^^^^^^
To be abundantly clear: I am absolutely NOT saying that I think the team is sold, or even that owners are thinking about selling. I appreciate the vote of confidence, but at the same time, please don’t put words into my mouth.

What I AM saying is that I believe the ownership group has taken stock of its own mortality. they’ve already had one primary member of the ownership group die, and Clay Bennett clearly had his own scare. I believe they are a well-intentioned group, who is only trying to secure this team in this city for a generation to come. Extended until a time when ownership will have changed hands, if only due to the mortality to which we all are subjected.

I believe they are trying to put the team on an extended path of profitability, or at the very least ensure that the team won’t be losing money no matter the future of CBAs and TV deals.

Do I think they’ll sell? Yeah…I think at least some of them will be happy to sell once the future (and their legacies) have been secured. Probably after the building opens we could expect to see some shuffling as some members take their reward for the work they’ve put into this since they bought the team all of the way back in 2006.

But I seriously doubt they are sitting around with pens in their hands and closing documents on the desk.

All of that said, if the vote fails I’d suspect they will give serious consideration to taking one of the numerous deals that will 100% be immediately presented. What folks don’t seem to get is that keeping this team in here is NOT maximizing ROI. Their very best ROI by far would be to sell this team to someone from another market, eager to pay over value to bring a team to their own city.

Beating your head against the wall, trying repeatedly to convince a marginal market to keep their only big league franchise in town, all for a pay cut vs potential value? And potentially losing money while they grovel for a few years, with no guarantees? I wouldn’t do that, either. Would you?

This is such a "have your cake and eat it too" argument. They want to secure their legacies but they want a big pay out. This is where we get back to the argument that started back on page 20-something. This is not a binary situation. It's not yes legacy/no legacy or yes pay out/no pay out. There's a spectrum for both legacy and pay out and the scales do not need to be so decidedly tipped to their pay out especially while trying to pretend there is some great legacy being offered up here.

The city would save money to forego the ownership's $50M offer and delay construction by 2 years, likely well north of $100M. There's 0% chance PBC profits anywhere near $100M in a new arena over against the current arena so the city is very specifically subsidizing profits with this proposal.

In all of this, some bank is going to make out better than both the city and the team in the short run and for what? This is where the urgency to sell becomes more and more apparent. Nobody on the city or PBC side of the table is unaware of the unholy amount of interest that the city is going to have to pay here. That both sides here are rushing this timeline in spite of that means something.

I think it's absolutely also worth stating that if pricing for loud city and even some lower level seating tickets rise substantially higher than inflation due to the new arena, a very tangible legacy that will be left is "rich owners pricing out a segment of their fan base they're supposed to inspire hope for". That's a legacy the city will share, inspiring more people to vote against future capital-project taxes that appear to benefit mainly the upper middle class and above.

To answer your question, if I were a business owner in this market segment worried principally about profits, no, I wouldn't stick around under any circumstance, because this is Oklahoma City.

If I were a business owner worried principally about the legacy my business leaves on the city I represent, I would have the patience to wait for a new facility built off the backs of the hundreds of thousands of hard-working individuals whose tax dollars support the initiative. I might even ask for more on the back-end to make up for lost profits now, or, more likely, I would just forego the profits for a few years to save the city a far more substantial chunk of change as a gesture of thanks to the community that brought an intangible value to my asset benefiting my experience as a part of that community.

I'm sure they've come by their approach honestly. But I'm not going to lionize them or the reckless use of public dollars just because they're willing to keep a professional sports team here. I'm not going to simply overlook the obvious concerns we should have as citizens because "this is the best deal we could strike", certainly not without a quality explanation of why.

On another note,

Assuming this passes and goes on the Cox site, did the Omni end up getting their request to have rights of first refusal for a future hotel on the Cox site? It's hard for me to imagine that we are using the Cox land well if we only get an arena out of it, but if part of this massive subsidy were to help fund some of the costs of a hotel and Omni pitched in to build out floors 4 through 15 plus finish on an incorporated hotel that would be a big win for this initiative.

On another note,

Assuming this passes and goes on the Cox site, did the Omni end up getting their request to have rights of first refusal for a future hotel on the Cox site? It's hard for me to imagine that we are using the Cox land well if we only get an arena out of it, but if part of this massive subsidy were to help fund some of the costs of a hotel and Omni pitched in to build out floors 4 through 15 plus finish on an incorporated hotel that would be a big win for this initiative.

As long as TIF funds don't go to the hotel, it's fine. See the Dream development. The TIF funds will be used on the apartments.

If you're inclined to trust Urbanized (which is something I hope most on this board would be inclined toward) - the message between the lines is that the team is already all but sold. The $50M is a parting gift from the ownership group to the city and they will sign a long-term lease in hopes that the team stays permanently.

We can talk all day long about precedent and how a team breaking a lease and moving a team has never happened, but at the end of the day, we're betting $1.5B that it won't. That's an exposure to risk that I'm not sure any major business owner would take with their own business. Unless we're writing the lease in such a way that Oklahoma Judges have signed-off on as iron clad in an Oklahoma court of law to prevent the team from moving, then we're placing a lot of faith that a future owner who doesn't care about OKC would not find a legal loophole to go find more profitable pastures. At the end of the day, this arena will only increase profitability to ownership so much given it's still located in Oklahoma City and is limited by the economy of its individual and business population, both of which substantially lag behind the alternative cities to which a future owner might want to move the team.

Man I honestly have no idea how you’re getting that from what Urbanized said and it’s inconsistent with anything that I’ve heard coming from literally anywhere lol. Big time over thinking this.

This is such a "have your cake and eat it too" argument. They want to secure their legacies but they want a big pay out. This is where we get back to the argument that started back on page 20-something. This is not a binary situation. It's not yes legacy/no legacy or yes pay out/no pay out. There's a spectrum for both legacy and pay out and the scales do not need to be so decidedly tipped to their pay out especially while trying to pretend there is some great legacy being offered up here.

The city would save money to forego the ownership's $50M offer and delay construction by 2 years, likely well north of $100M. There's 0% chance PBC profits anywhere near $100M in a new arena over against the current arena so the city is very specifically subsidizing profits with this proposal.

In all of this, some bank is going to make out better than both the city and the team in the short run and for what? This is where the urgency to sell becomes more and more apparent. Nobody on the city or PBC side of the table is unaware of the unholy amount of interest that the city is going to have to pay here. That both sides here are rushing this timeline in spite of that means something.

I think it's absolutely also worth stating that if pricing for loud city and even some lower level seating tickets rise substantially higher than inflation due to the new arena, a very tangible legacy that will be left is "rich owners pricing out a segment of their fan base they're supposed to inspire hope for". That's a legacy the city will share, inspiring more people to vote against future capital-project taxes that appear to benefit mainly the upper middle class and above.

To answer your question, if I were a business owner in this market segment worried principally about profits, no, I wouldn't stick around under any circumstance, because this is Oklahoma City.

If I were a business owner worried principally about the legacy my business leaves on the city I represent, I would have the patience to wait for a new facility built off the backs of the hundreds of thousands of hard-working individuals whose tax dollars support the initiative. I might even ask for more on the back-end to make up for lost profits now, or, more likely, I would just forego the profits for a few years to save the city a far more substantial chunk of change as a gesture of thanks to the community that brought an intangible value to my asset benefiting my experience as a part of that community.

I'm sure they've come by their approach honestly. But I'm not going to lionize them or the reckless use of public dollars just because they're willing to keep a professional sports team here. I'm not going to simply overlook the obvious concerns we should have as citizens because "this is the best deal we could strike", certainly not without a quality explanation of why.

1. No guarantee ticket costs go up, especially since there will likely be more of them. That’s just an assumption. Tickets were expensive as hell when the team was good, especially on the secondary market, and declined when they started going down hill. If the product is good, people will pay to see just as they always have. If it’s bad, they won’t.

2. Again that’s a bunch of words for “I’m willing to potentially lose the team over $50-$150 million that will have no tangible impact on my day to day life nor will it have any dire impact on the city”

3. A few of the older guys selling all or part of their share at some point down the road if their families don’t want to take over is hardly surprising. If the arena is built, I would have a hard time seeing the entire group selling out or doing anything that would give up a controlling interest. Though if they did…they would be extremely unlikely to move from a brand new arena…that has literally never happened. But even in the unlikely event that they did ant some point…are they going to take the arena with them? In 25 years, being left with a very nice 20 year old arena that can continue to be effectively renovated doesn’t sound too bad when the other option is them leaving in 5 years and being left with an empty and aging paycom center center for the same 20 years (it would be nearing 50 at that point) that we continue to duct tape together before eventually having to replace it anyway.

4. in response to your other post…precedent absolutely does matter whether you want to ignore it or not.

We all want what is best for Oklahoma City. Our Mayor Holt has explained the inadequate flaws with the Paycom Center in its current state. JoBeth Harmon has her concerns with a new arena. These voices should be respected.

Mayor David Holt:


1. The total square footage, more money-making amenities.
2, Not having a team. (Has the ownership been transparent about a failed vote.)
3. Not having $600 million in economic impact, the brand we get Internationally.
4. Community Unity, The Quality of Life and the Concerts
5. The ownership's commitment. (OKC will own the arena.)
6. How will our new arena compete with current NBA arenas.

JoBeth Harmon:


1. Holt has not been transparent with the public.
2. City operating out of fear of losing the team.
3. We weren't given adequate information about how this deal looks with other cities. (Which cities are a fair comparison.)
4. Is it a really good deal. Was it negotiated well.
5. The ownership's commitment. (Should the ownership commit more than $50 million.
6. How will our new arena compete with current NBA arenas.

This is what I took from the source 'Live with this deal or not': Divided opinions over new Oklahoma City Thunder arena project."

Source: https://okcfox.com/news/local/divided-opinions-over-new-oklahoma-city-thunder-arena-project-mayor-david-holt-councilwoman-jobeth-hamon-clay-bennett-team-owners-ownership-sports-sporting-events-economic-impact-brand-community-unity-quality-of-life-concerts-philanthropy-election
^ ^ ^ This was limited to one source ^ ^ ^

My opinion: We need to commission a group to conduct a study on what kind of arena we need--Specs needed to support our two main events and future attractions. NBA basketball and concerts. Also future events we could attract with a new arena that our current Paycom Center can't support. We lost a 10,000 attendee FFA event to Tulsa because we couldn't commit to a three year agreement with the State's FFA annual gathering. Can we host more events with two invested arenas using a new arena and Paycom Center, can our city bring in more attractions and conventions? This is what we could obtain from a thorough study.

Can OKC support other NBA related events like hosting an NBA Summer League or Collegiate basketball events like the 'revival' of the NCAA All College Tournament or hosting an NCAA tournament regional. The International Finals Rodeo being returned to OKC, with the capacity to host the calf roping event in the new arena--is this feasible.

What attractions do we have that will be a selling point to tourists who visit our city like Arts Museum, FAM museum, The Bombing Memorial and The OKANA Resort under construction. The current NCAA WCWS Softball playoffs, how can we provide more to the visitors for the attractions our city has to offer. Bricktown and city hotel and restaurants to support future events.

Let's put to rest what we want to do with the 4 square block Prairie Surf Studios' site for future use.

As long as TIF funds don't go to the hotel, it's fine. See the Dream development. The TIF funds will be used on the apartments.

If the OMNI was involved, TIF funds could be used. The question was whether or not they still had right of first refusal.

1. No guarantee ticket costs go up, especially since there will likely be more of them. That’s just an assumption. Tickets were expensive as hell when the team was good, especially on the secondary market, and declined when they started going down hill. If the product is good, people will pay to see just as they always have. If it’s bad, they won’t.

2. Again that’s a bunch of words for “I’m willing to potentially lose the team over $50-$150 million that will have no tangible impact on my day to day life nor will it have any dire impact on the city”

3. A few of the older guys selling all or part of their share at some point down the road if their families don’t want to take over is hardly surprising. If the arena is built, I would have a hard time seeing the entire group selling out or doing anything that would give up a controlling interest. Though if they did…they would be extremely unlikely to move from a brand new arena…that has literally never happened. But even in the unlikely event that they did ant some point…are they going to take the arena with them? In 25 years, being left with a very nice 20 year old arena that can continue to be effectively renovated doesn’t sound too bad when the other option is them leaving in 5 years and being left with an empty and aging paycom center center for the same 20 years (it would be nearing 50 at that point) that we continue to duct tape together before eventually having to replace it anyway.

4. in response to your other post…precedent absolutely does matter whether you want to ignore it or not.

#1. The market only matters in this academic argument and to those who can afford to pay more for tickets. The narrative that will be driven if the lower middle class and especially if the middle class is priced out from an activity they used to be able to afford will be "evil greedy rich" people. Voting is a matter of perception, not being "correct".

#2. It's not $150M. It's $1.5B. And what I am actually willing to wager is that the situation is not as urgent as it's being made out. If I truly felt the owners were going to sell in the next 5 years, I'd probably vote yes, but you know what, they can clear that up for me real quick if they're willing to sell. In my mind, the earliest they'll sell is when the SGA Thunder era comes to an end. So, yes, absent information they have foolishly withheld from the public, I believe we have more time. We'll see what this "campaign" that's coming is all about and what additional information it will bring. I'm not convinced a MAPS level push is going to be made...the strategy they have employed up to this point is that they want this to quietly pass and it likely will.

#4 I'm still not risking $1.5B on precedent, much of which is not apples to apples, nor am I awarding a terrible approach to the public for this effort.

Double post

Wonder what the value of a cover exposure is. Good pub for OKC. All this is part of the value of the team to OKC.

https://www.slamonline.com/the-magazine/okc-thunder-slam-247-cover-story/

Anyone seen this website yet? It is the first item coming up on google when you search anything about the OKC arena. Let the campaign begin!

https://www.keepokcbigleague.com/

Wonder what the value of a cover exposure is. Good pub for OKC. All this is part of the value of the team to OKC.

https://www.slamonline.com/the-magazine/okc-thunder-slam-247-cover-story/
Great article. It’s feeling like 2010 but somehow even better. No negativity, no toxicity. This team was assembled using a good bit of hindsight. Not all talent is worth the hassle.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? You don't believe that Urbanized has implied the team is likely going to be sold regardless of the vote?

Yes, I think you are making stuff up wholesale.

Yes, I think you are making stuff up wholesale.

Well, okay

To be abundantly clear, I have no personal insight whatsoever what the Thunder’s ownership is thinking or planning. A few pages back I DID say that my gut tells me some members would probably cash out after the building is online, because that’s a logical thing to do in business.

They have an asset that likely doesn’t pay them a lot (I know, hard to believe, with all of the money changing hands, but teams have unreal overhead), but yet an asset that is worth billions. The solid business play is to build value and then sell the asset. And nobody lives forever. It just makes sense from a business and human nature standpoint that there will be transactions.

There’s nothing nefarious about selling, ESPECIALLY if they’ve already secured the team’s long-term future in OKC.

The idea that they’ll sell to someone if it DOESN’T pass is also supposition, but one founded in realities, and essentially acknowledged by the mayor publicly. Without a new building the team becomes less and less able to cash flow, and less and less able to afford to remain competitive. They become a poverty franchise. Owners start to LOSE money. The team loses game after game with no hope to compete. Fans stop coming (we now know that this is also the reality in OKC, like many markets). Nobody wants that…do they..?

And it goes without saying that billionaires in other non-NBA cities will immediately line up with offers. With high resale value, no prospects for a new building, an election rejection by hometown fans in a marginal, one-team market, diminishing potential for success, a potential (even likelihood ) of millions of dollars in losses, not to mention stupidly-high offers coming in one after the other, what do you THINK will happen? Again, let an understanding of human nature be your guide here.

To be abundantly clear, I have no personal insight whatsoever what the Thunder’s ownership is thinking or planning. A few pages back I DID say that my gut tells me some members would probably cash out after the building is online, because that’s a logical thing to do in business.

They have an asset that likely doesn’t pay them a lot (I know, hard to believe, with all of the money changing hands, but teams have unreal overhead), but yet an asset that is worth billions. The solid business play is to build value and then sell the asset. And nobody lives forever. It just makes sense from a business and human nature standpoint that there will be transactions.

There’s nothing nefarious about selling, ESPECIALLY if they’ve already secured the team’s long-term future in OKC.

The idea that they’ll sell to someone if it DOESN’T pass is also supposition, but one founded in realities, and essentially acknowledged by the mayor publicly. Without a new building the team becomes less and less able to cash flow, and less and less able to afford to remain competitive. They become a poverty franchise. Owners start to LOSE money. The team loses game after game with no hope to compete. Fans stop coming (we now know tha this is the reality in OKC, like many markets). Nobody wants that…do they..?

And it goes without saying that billionaires in other non-NBA cities will immediately line up with offers. With high resale value, no prospects for a new building, an election rejection by hometown fans in a marginal, one-team market, diminishing potential for success, a potential (even likelihood ) of millions of dollars in losses, not to mention stupidly-high offers coming in one after the other, what do you THINK will happen? Again, let an understanding of human nature be your guide here.

All of this is fair. Unfortunately, I think both sides flubbed the economic modeling here. This was announced 7/14/22 so it was likely being talked about as early as 2021. The economy has probably surprised both sides. When this was announced, the Fed Rate was at 1.75, was probably at 1.00 when discussions heated up and today it's at 5.5 with the threat of rising and also staying higher, longer. It doesn't need to be nefarious for us to change course, it's what a good business would do.

Vote no, drop the team Subsidy, delay construction 1 or 2 years and gather state incentives. That's a better deal that only screws over the hypothetical bank that will profit off the interest and asks the State to make a contribution to a major producing asset for them.

So, once again for those who are struggling to connect the dots in my posts: while I do know a few highly placed people at the Thunder, I haven’t spoken with ANY of them on this topic, and have zero specific insight into what they’re thinking/doing/planning.

What I DO have is several decades of working closely with people at the City of OKC in multiple capacities. I know how municipal government works (it can be confusing for the uninitiated), and I’ve tried to share details here about various things the City can and cannot do based on City charter, structure, ordinance, state law and precedent. I’ve tried to explain the civics behind this to those who care to listen. If you choose to not listen, to not believe it, to mock me for telling the truth…well…that’s on you.

All of this is fair. Unfortunately, I think both sides flubbed the economic modeling here. This was announced 7/14/22 so it was likely being talked about as early as 2021. The economy has probably surprised both sides. When this was announced, the Fed Rate was at 1.75, was probably at 1.00 when discussions heated up and today it's at 5.5 with the threat of rising and also staying higher, longer. It doesn't need to be nefarious for us to change course, it's what a good business would do.

Vote no, drop the team Subsidy, delay construction 1 or 2 years and gather state incentives. That's a better deal that only screws over the hypothetical bank that will profit off the interest and asks the State to make a contribution to a major producing asset for them.

Who cares about economic modeling? Why are people overcomplicating this?

Economic modeling is hard. The Bureau of Labor Statistics routinely misses on employment projections from month to month. Statistics are not irrelevant but it doesn't take a Wharton MBA to understand the value the Thunder brings to this city. By the same token, it doesn't take a Nobel Laureate to understand the absolute hit this city would take should it lose its only professional franchise.

Come on, people. It's as if you just love arguing for argument's sake. Exhausting and very short sighted.

#1. The market only matters in this academic argument and to those who can afford to pay more for tickets. The narrative that will be driven if the lower middle class and especially if the middle class is priced out from an activity they used to be able to afford will be "evil greedy rich" people. Voting is a matter of perception, not being "correct".

#2. It's not $150M. It's $1.5B. And what I am actually willing to wager is that the situation is not as urgent as it's being made out. If I truly felt the owners were going to sell in the next 5 years, I'd probably vote yes, but you know what, they can clear that up for me real quick if they're willing to sell. In my mind, the earliest they'll sell is when the SGA Thunder era comes to an end. So, yes, absent information they have foolishly withheld from the public, I believe we have more time. We'll see what this "campaign" that's coming is all about and what additional information it will bring. I'm not convinced a MAPS level push is going to be made...the strategy they have employed up to this point is that they want this to quietly pass and it likely will.

#4 I'm still not risking $1.5B on precedent, much of which is not apples to apples, nor am I awarding a terrible approach to the public for this effort.

Ok, I thought it was you who said you’d be okay with the plan if the owners were contributing $100-$150 million more or the cost was dropped.

If the Thunder are here, this will happen at some point regardless. What price tag do you think is appropriate?

At some point we’re going to build an arena that’s at least in the neighborhood of $1 billion…we will be doing so with the same assurances being offered now that the team stays but nothing more. At what point are you willing to take that gamble and why does it make a difference if it’s now or in 5 years?

Prospective owners from other larger cities know that if they buy and move from OKC they can immediately improve their net worth by 1to 4 BILLION dollars. Whereas it is worth maybe $1.75 Billion here in OKC, it would be worth anywhere from $3-$6 Billion in a larger metropolis. This is why other owners can afford to pay more than the Thunder owners, not that they are more generous. Investment in the team, media rights, merchandise, real estate, etc. is all worth more in bigger cities. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. How much do you expect the current owners to turn down to be “loyal”? A Billion?$ 2 Billion?

^^^^^^^
This.

Prospective owners from other larger cities know that if they buy and move from OKC they can immediately improve their net worth by 1to 4 BILLION dollars. Whereas it is worth maybe $1.75 Billion here in OKC, it would be worth anywhere from $3-$6 Billion in a larger metropolis. This is why other owners can afford to pay more than the Thunder owners, not that they are more generous. Investment in the team, media rights, merchandise, real estate, etc. is all worth more in bigger cities. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. How much do you expect the current owners to turn down to be “loyal”? A Billion?$ 2 Billion?

Excellent points about the franchise being in a larger market and the 'value' it could accumulate.

Also, along with what Rover says, if an arena is built, the lease is set long-term, and if the team goes on a championship run (a distinct possibility as currently configured), the team’s value IN OKC will jump exponentially, making it an amazing time for some long-time owners to cash out. A win-win-win.

We all need to remember that - in the end - this is a business deal.

If it’s true that ownership would immediately sell based on a single no vote of an the extremely one-sided deal, then this ownership group really are despicable people with no interest in the OKC community. They’re just here for corporate welfare to enrich themselves.

I say this as someone who probably would vote yes. But your claims—and I trust your judgment—have made me lose all respect for the owners.

i think it is likely the owners are going to sell the team either way .. do we want it to stay in OKC for the next 30 years or do we want the new owner to move it .. (which is what will happen without an arena)

Also, along with what Rover says, if an arena is built, the lease is set long-term, and if the team goes on a championship run (a distinct possibility as currently configured), the team’s value IN OKC will jump exponentially, making it an amazing time for some long-time owners to cash out. A win-win-win.

We all need to remember that this is in the end a business deal.

IF OKC continues to grow at a good to great pace, after the 30 year commitment, OKC should be one of the heavyweight cities and THEN should be able to demand a much higher contribution rate on the inevitable next deal. We are trying to prove that we justify the faith in our future worth, not that we have already arrived.

IF OKC continues to grow at a good to great pace, after the 30 year commitment, OKC should be one of the heavyweight cities and THEN should be able to demand a much higher contribution rate on the inevitable next deal. We are trying to prove that we justify the faith in our future worth, not that we have already arrived.

the higher contribution rate would come with different lease terms then OKC has .. that is why it is not higher now ..

they only comparable leases are orlando (which ownership contributed 10%) and memphis ownership 0.00%

i think it is likely the owners are going to sell the team either way .. do we want it to stay in OKC for the next 30 years or do we want the new owner to move it .. (which is what will happen without an arena)

Why are they likely to sell?

Kaiser is now listed 2nd on the ownership site. So it’s probably safe to assume he has the 2nd highest amount of ownership. This was at the 2014 valuation price not the original purchase price.

When Clay Bennett and his group purchased the team from Howard Schulz for $350M they were losing money. Based on recent numbers the team is profitable. With franchises appreciating and outpacing other investments it would be tough to sell unless forced.

I feel like the majority of wealthy individuals prefer to use their assets as collateral for loans allowing them to lower their tax burden. If you sell the team they would experience a one time capital gains event and potentially lose 23.5% of their gains.

Beating your head against the wall, trying repeatedly to convince a marginal market to keep their only big league franchise in town, all for a pay cut vs potential value? And potentially losing money while they grovel for a few years, with no guarantees? I wouldn’t do that, either. Would you?

This is not at all representative of what's happened. Grovel?!? The ownership group has made almost no effort to even communicate to the OKC community or offer even a marginally decent deal. I think this vote would have been a slam dunk and the public criticism muted if the ownership even tried at all. Instead this feels like a backroom deal of selfish rich guys.

As I've said, I'd probably vote for it because I agree the risk isn't worth losing the Thunder, but if this is the sentiment of the ownership group then they aren't community members, they're community grifters.


We all need to remember that - in the end - this is a business deal.

That is becoming clearer, but that's a choice. Owners of teams have historically prioritized their communities over sheer profits. Did the owners think OKC was more profitable than other cities when the team was moved? What's changed? It's disappointing if a single failed vote over a backroom deal that benefitted them led to immediately selling.

I do think this could’ve been handled better by both the team and the city so far. Really think it would’ve been smarter to let this season play out, which hopefully will be our first true playoff run with this group and use that momentum to roll into the vote in December of 2024…but what do I know. We are much more aware of this stuff here and care more than the majority of OKC so maybe they’re planning to make a joint campaign in November and early December.

I thought that this might've been asked, but don't remember it being answered, may have missed it...

Even though OKC itself can't produce any renderings, it would seem very strange for the Thunder org themselves to not have any renderings or plans drawn up at this point, it's almost certain they do and it's not just a few sketches on napkins. Why can't/won't they share those?

IF OKC continues to grow at a good to great pace, after the 30 year commitment, OKC should be one of the heavyweight cities and THEN should be able to demand a much higher contribution rate on the inevitable next deal. We are trying to prove that we justify the faith in our future worth, not that we have already arrived.

I think this is a fine line of reasoning. It's based on a foundation I don't share, but I don't think you (or Urbanized, or Boulder, etc) are building poor arguments.

OKC is a better city with the Thunder, but it's still a great city without them. Thriving dining scene, multiple universities in the metro, improving infrastructure, improving music scene, etc etc. I don't think we've arrived but I don't think a professional sports team is our only ticket to arrival.

I think this is a fine line of reasoning. It's based on a foundation I don't share, but I don't think you (or Urbanized, or Boulder, etc) are building poor arguments.

OKC is a better city with the Thunder, but it's still a great city without them. Thriving dining scene, multiple universities in the metro, improving infrastructure, improving music scene, etc etc. I don't think we've arrived but I don't think a professional sports team is our only ticket to arrival.

A "Big 4" sports team is still the biggest ticket to arrival. Nothing else is close for the overall reach across all social and economic platforms. Nothing. Not the symphony, the church, the zoo, nightlife etc.

I think this is a fine line of reasoning. It's based on a foundation I don't share, but I don't think you (or Urbanized, or Boulder, etc) are building poor arguments.

OKC is a better city with the Thunder, but it's still a great city without them. Thriving dining scene, multiple universities in the metro, improving infrastructure, improving music scene, etc etc. I don't think we've arrived but I don't think a professional sports team is our only ticket to arrival.

Yeah I’m sorry but while OKC is becoming a great city with all the things you mentioned, losing a professional sports team and being knocked out of that fraternity of cities would be a bigger setback from a national perception standpoint than anything that has happened since the Penn Square Bank failure (or the bombing though I think our response to it probably improved OKC’s national perception). At that point you have nothing, at least from the perspective of outsiders, that differentiates us from Omaha or Tulsa. All of the other things you mention are great and contribute to our national perception but other cities without professional sports have thriving dining scenes, multiple universities, better infrastructure, nice things that the city has built, and good music scenes. To recruit talent, employers, etc…you need more major differentiators..not fewer.

I thought that this might've been asked, but don't remember it being answered, may have missed it...

Even though OKC itself can't produce any renderings, it would seem very strange for the Thunder org themselves to not have any renderings or plans drawn up at this point, it's almost certain they do and it's not just a few sketches on napkins. Why can't/won't they share those?

I think, if they are in possession of decent renderings and disclose them, they will lose a fair amount of their leverage vis-a-vis the December 12 Vote.

Particularly if they are fairly nice renderings.

I thought that this might've been asked, but don't remember it being answered, may have missed it...

Even though OKC itself can't produce any renderings, it would seem very strange for the Thunder org themselves to not have any renderings or plans drawn up at this point, it's almost certain they do and it's not just a few sketches on napkins. Why can't/won't they share those?
After a conversation the other evening with someone very close to the arena effort on the City's side, I'm 100% convinced the Thunder does NOT have drawings. Reasons why:


The expense of the drawings for this CITY-OWNED building will 100% fall upon the City, or more specifically upon the project budget. Those funds yet don't exist, because the project is not yet approved by voters..
Drawings will cost millions. Spending a bunch of money to have drawings done for a project that they are only SPECULATING will be passed would be foolhardy for the Thunder, and basically illegal for the City.
The actual project site has yet to be determined. Really. The space available on the site will drive many design decisions.
While there are surely finish levels, plus certain features and interior configurations clearly desired by parties involved, believe it or not those parties would like to see what a qualified A&E firm comes up with, after everything is decided and after there are funds in place to pay for the full design treatment. Why paint the real project into a corner by doing preliminary design work for a tiny fraction of the final design cost?
Last but not least, if the Thunder engaged with a firm now to design some sort of "mood board" type of rendering, said firm would be disqualified from submitting a proposal for the real project, once it's approved and funded. No qualified firm hoping to bid on this work would get within a mile of JUST doing a conceptual rendering. They want the actual job, which by itself will represent millions of dollars in income to whoever is selected.

When this project is passed, design work will take many months if not a year or more. And it will be done by a qualified, selected A&E firm using full funding and best practices; not an artist making pretty pictures for campaign ads.

I’m extremely confused by the obsession with renderings, without a site officially selected that will likely look nothing like what is actually built, at this stage of the game. I guess it would give them something tangible to help sell the idea. But man, the obsession with it here seems a little pointless.

Tell us what will be included in the project, all the specs they plan to use in the new arena design and why that is so much better than Paycom and important for the city, the Thunder and all of us that will use it. Design it when the site is officially selected.

^^^^^^^
This.

Thanks Urbanized, all good info and I completely forgot about point #5 being brought up recently...

As far as the renderings "obsession", very few people will buy a car or a house or a washer/dryer or damn near anything without seeing what it will look like first (at least a somewhat general idea). Humans are very visual animals, and most probably don't want to spend time and effort trying to understand via words what the arena will look like, they want it spoon-fed to them via pretty pictures (or at least a general idea). Enough of you work for companies that have higher-ups that just want charts or pictures or graphs or one-paragraph "executive summaries" instead of having to read pages and figure it out themselves, so you know the analogy...

A "Big 4" sports team is still the biggest ticket to arrival. Nothing else is close for the overall reach across all social and economic platforms. Nothing. Not the symphony, the church, the zoo, nightlife etc.

This is one of the best (and most economical) explanations I've seen here for something I've been struggling to put into words.

Thanks Urbanized, all good info and I completely forgot about point #5 being brought up recently...

You're welcome. There are a lot of moving parts, and it feels like I'm obligated to pass on any clarifying info if I have it. It's an important decision for our city.