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.

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...

Sorry, I wasn’t really directing that at you as much as the fact that this thread has gone around and around obsessing over renderings, or the lack thereof, for months.

I get how they would be helpful, I just don’t think it’s near as big of deal as people here are making it.

Sorry, I wasn’t really directing that at you as much as the fact that this thread has gone around and around obsessing over renderings, or the lack thereof, for months.

I get how they would be helpful, I just don’t think it’s near as big of deal as people here are making it.

I don’t think it’s a as simple as wanting renderings.

I think it’s an apparently old fashioned value of, show me what I’m getting for my money. Give us something that allows some form of accountability, transparency, and insight. The process could’ve been handled in a completely different way from the start with the Mayor. It really comes off as the chosen approach/strategy to get this passed. Give us $900M+ now to build an arena that’s been discussed since Mick Cornett was mayor. However, now we need it to be ready once the current lease is up so now the public needs to pay the interest bill too.

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.

Preach the truth! AMEN

I don’t think it’s a as simple as wanting renderings.

I think it’s an apparently old fashioned value of, show me what I’m getting for my money. Give us something that allows some form of accountability, transparency, and insight. The process could’ve been handled in a completely different way from the start with the Mayor. It really comes off as the chosen approach/strategy to get this passed. Give us $900M+ now to build an arena that’s been discussed since Mick Cornett was mayor. However, now we need it to be ready once the current lease is up so now the public needs to pay the interest bill too.

You don’t need renderings for that. A list of specs that the arena will meet and features it will include would be more than enough. Though I don’t think they’ve done that with any level of detail either so I guess the point is moot.

I would think that multiple firms would’ve already submitted preliminary designs I get that the actual blueprints and stuff cost millions but I think we learn more before the vote

I looked at a pic of Dallas when AA arena was built and there was nothing surrounding it, it’s night and day I think if they choose to build on the co op site that would be a development magnet

You don’t need renderings for that. A list of specs that the arena will meet and features it will include would be more than enough. Though I don’t think they’ve done that with any level of detail either so I guess the point is moot.

Agreed

I would think that multiple firms would’ve already submitted preliminary designs I get that the actual blueprints and stuff cost millions but I think we learn more before the vote
Read Urbanized and understand that’s not how it happens, and for good reason.

I would think that multiple firms would’ve already submitted preliminary designs I get that the actual blueprints and stuff cost millions but I think we learn more before the vote
I don’t think many people understand what goes into designing. It’s not just creating pretty and dramatic pictures of things that will never be built. There’s a difference between art and design.

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 guess the question is "what are you wanting to arrive to?"

I have no interest in ever visiting or knowing more about Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Sacramento, Baltimore. I'm substantially interested in the prospects of visiting Hartford, Santa Fe, Salem, Paso Robles, Boise, Birmingham, Virginia Beach. I'd bet most of us could make a list of "Big 4" league cities that are a complete yawn and fill a must-see list with cities that would be happy with just a minor league team.

Is it just pure name recognition that determines we've arrived?

I agree that few things come close to the reach: I'd argue ACL and SxSW do more for Austin than the Thunder does for OKC, Disney obviously does circles around every sports franchise in the world, and if Boston had to choose between the Marathon and the Celtics, it would be a hotly debated topic. Perhaps the Thunder are our easiest ticket to being on people's radar, but this idea that there's no path without it and that we're not already on the path is just not based in truth. It's an expedient argument for why we must vote yes or the sky will fall.

I guess the question is "what are you wanting to arrive to?"

I have no interest in ever visiting or knowing more about Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Sacramento, Baltimore. I'm substantially interested in the prospects of visiting Hartford, Santa Fe, Salem, Paso Robles, Boise, Birmingham, Virginia Beach. I'd bet most of us could make a list of "Big 4" league cities that are a complete yawn and fill a must-see list with cities that would be happy with just a minor league team.

Is it just pure name recognition that determines we've arrived?

I agree that few things come close to the reach: I'd argue ACL and SxSW do more for Austin than the Thunder does for OKC, Disney obviously does circles around every sports franchise in the world, and if Boston had to choose between the Marathon and the Celtics, it would be a hotly debated topic. Perhaps the Thunder are our easiest ticket to being on people's radar, but this idea that there's no path without it and that we're not already on the path is just not based in truth. It's an expedient argument for why we must vote yes or the sky will fall.

What in the name of ask that is good and holy did I just read? OKC has no world-class festivals to compete with this. It takes someone wanting to run a festival here. There has never been a large festival here, and likely never will be. Nothing OKC can really do about that. Repairing roads won't make it more likely to have a large festival, as Austin's roads are not that great, either. Same with curing homelessness (lol at Ausitn having no homeless problem). OKC has to work with the advantages it has. Why remove one of their biggest advantages (the Thunder)? Why not use a new arena as a catalyst to continue growth?

What in the name of ask that is good and holy did I just read? OKC has no world-class festivals to compete with this. It takes someone wanting to run a festival here. There has never been a large festival here, and likely never will be. Nothing OKC can really do about that. Repairing roads won't make it more likely to have a large festival, as Austin's roads are not that great, either. Same with curing homelessness (lol at Ausitn having no homeless problem). OKC has to work with the advantages it has. Why remove one of their biggest advantages (the Thunder)? Why not use a new arena as a catalyst to continue growth?

What is the plan to leverage the Thunder to get us there? The Thunder have no doubt had a positive impact on OKC, but I fail to see what they are going to do differently to take us to where we're going rather than where we are/have been. A new arena, if it is designed in such a way that creates a world class public experience (i.e. not only ticket paying experience) could definitely move the needle but that doesn't appear to be part of the package we're voting on. I believe we're voting strictly on an arena made explicitly for the events inside the arena (and I guess landmark architecture would be involved).

Losing the Thunder would set the city back, but I've yet to see a clear message from the city or PBC that the Thunder are a lock to leave on a "No" vote here. PBC has said nothing of substance. I believe the Mayor is really only on record saying there are no plans for another vote. That makes sense because the city assumes this will pass.

If this vote fails, Mayor Holt will not throw up his hands and say "well, we tried", he'll do what he was elected to do and lead the city working a new proposal as quickly as he can to assuage the concerns of PBC that OKC is a viable choice. PBC will field calls from all manner of buyers and will ultimately elect to hold on because they know a huge media rights deal is coming, they have a competitive team, they don't need the money and they would come to believe that OKC will "come to their senses" and get an arena built within a reasonable time frame (vote in 2024). This is a business decision, yes, but with a hefty dose of emotion. The owners would never WANT to sell the Thunder, especially before they win it all. When they can let go of the emotion, it will be strictly business, but now is not the best time to do so from a business perspective and worse time from an emotional perspective.

By the way, the various Horse Shows throughout the year are a substantial economic engine that brings international attention (and visitors) to the city. So, the purported lack of world-class events is factually incorrect.

Agreed

Aye! We agree on something (not unusual outside of this discussion but still noteworthy lol).

I don’t think many people understand what goes into designing. It’s not just creating pretty and dramatic pictures of things that will never be built. There’s a difference between art and design.

You, sir, must not know Rainey Williams.

You, sir, must not know Rainey Williams.

:lol2:

You, sir, must not know Rainey Williams.

Now there’s a man that would make any city jealous to not have, especially Kansas City and Dallas.

You, sir, must not know Rainey Williams.
So, there you go. Everybody got their pretty pictures. Then, how did that work out?

So, there you go. Everybody got their pretty pictures. Then, how did that work out?

You don’t think that’s downtown OKC’s finest block?

I would think that multiple firms would’ve already submitted preliminary designs

there is not yet a RFP no one has submitted anything ..

there are likely multiple firms that have had internal meetings .. that go something like this .. " did you hear OKC has a vote for a new arena? yes i did lets have (insert intern) track that and we can circle back if it passes"

I would think that multiple firms would’ve already submitted preliminary designs I get that the actual blueprints and stuff cost millions but I think we learn more before the voteNot likely. Similar to a post before if some firm's renderings were accepted and used before the project goes for open bids the other bidders would complain that the firm had an illegal advantage. Or that firm simply wouldn't bid and why do that to yourself.

So, there you go. Everybody got their pretty pictures. Then, how did that work out?

I’d love to work with you on your next home build. I’ll need $600k before starting any design work. When can you have the initial payment ready?

To the people who keep asking about renderings and locations specifics. This is directly from the Mayor-endorsed website FAQs.


Where will the new arena be?

Much like every major city investment in projects, an exact location will not be determined until voters decide whether or not to move forward. It would be unwise to spend the resources to determine the best location until we have approval. The ordinance does specify that the arena will be in the downtown core. It is important for the arena to be downtown so we can take advantage of the synergy with the new convention center, Scissortail Park, and the more than 20 hotels that have been opened in the area since the Thunder came to OKC.

To the people who keep asking about renderings and locations specifics. This is directly from the Mayor-endorsed website FAQs.

Why didn’t Clay Bennett come with a plan like he did in Renton? He committed $100M in that case toward a $500M arena at the time. Why wasn’t that same path followed in our case?

I’d love to work with you on your next home build. I’ll need $600k before starting any design work. When can you have the initial payment ready?

Voolah

Why didn’t Clay Bennett come with a plan like he did in Renton? He committed $100M in that case toward a $500M arena at the time. Why wasn’t that same path followed in our case?

where are you seeing that he committed 100 m to that ??

where are you seeing that he committed 100 m to that ??

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20070218&slug=sonicsqampa18m

Q: How much would taxpayers pay?

A: Bennett wants $300 million in state-authorized taxes, all collected only in King County. The remaining $200 million-plus in costs would be split between team owners and the city of Renton. Bennett has talked about a team contribution of $100 million but has promised nothing, and Renton officials say they don't know how much the city could pay. The arena construction also would be exempted from state and local sales and excise taxes.

Gotta level up your google fu my friend

Maybe OKC should build a duplicate of The Sphere in Vegas, then the arena could morph into any architectural design you want?

Why didn’t Clay Bennett come with a plan like he did in Renton? He committed $100M in that case toward a $500M arena at the time. Why wasn’t that same path followed in our case?

Damn, that would be like $150 Million adjusted for inflation.

I guess the question is "what are you wanting to arrive to?"

I have no interest in ever visiting or knowing more about Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Sacramento, Baltimore. I'm substantially interested in the prospects of visiting Hartford, Santa Fe, Salem, Paso Robles, Boise, Birmingham, Virginia Beach. I'd bet most of us could make a list of "Big 4" league cities that are a complete yawn and fill a must-see list with cities that would be happy with just a minor league team.

Is it just pure name recognition that determines we've arrived?

I agree that few things come close to the reach: I'd argue ACL and SxSW do more for Austin than the Thunder does for OKC, Disney obviously does circles around every sports franchise in the world, and if Boston had to choose between the Marathon and the Celtics, it would be a hotly debated topic. Perhaps the Thunder are our easiest ticket to being on people's radar, but this idea that there's no path without it and that we're not already on the path is just not based in truth. It's an expedient argument for why we must vote yes or the sky will fall.

Seems to me that you are making cultural arguments. I'm afraid I don't know what ACL is (other than a knee ligament), but I'm sure it and SxSW are quite popular in their areas of interest. Boston Marathon would never engage in a choice discussion. They would lose.

But, the choices aren't necessary. And the cultural arguments they bring. The arena is worth the cost to the city, IMO. For the overall entertainment value it will bring to the city.

I have followed pro sports business, relocations and stadia arguments as a hobby for over 40 years. As a rule, cities never regret keeping a team. Cities always regret losing a team.

And...I don't think the Thunder will sell or leave if they lose this vote. The NBA has changed their approach after the Seattle move and force a long and difficult negotiation before letting anyone move. The Sacramento Kings arena deal took about 10 years. It went through Mayor Kevin Johnson (a former NBA and Kings player) getting involved and bounced from office from unrelated issues, the Maloof family owners losing the team in the great recession, and flat out telling multi billionaire Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer that he could not move the team to Seattle if he bought them. Regardless of how he got an arena built in Seattle.

Also, the NBA is not going to let a team relocate to any potential expansion market. Expansion fees pay everyone in the league ownership. Relocations pay next to nothing.

I am 100% in favor of the new arena as it is currently proposed.

Also, the NBA is not going to let a team relocate to any potential expansion market. Expansion fees pay everyone in the league ownership. Relocations pay next to nothing.



as the raiders showed (more then once) Leagues can't really stop teams from moving at all ..

as the raiders showed (more then once) Leagues can't really stop teams from moving at all ..

I did see that the NHL was attempting to instate a clause that would prevent the Coyotes from moving had their proposal passed in Tempe. I’m curious if that’s actually enforceable and if the NBA would do something like that in OKCs case?

I did see that the NHL was attempting to instate a clause that would prevent the Coyotes from moving had their proposal passed in Tempe.

well not exactly. it was that had the proposal pass in Tempe, if the league was to contribute any funds, the ownership would be required to stay for 10 years in Tempe, or else repay the league for the contributed funds. Remember that when the NHL took ownership for a short time after the Coyotes Bankruptcy, they actually threatened to move the team to Winnipeg in 2013, if Glendale didn't allow them to sign a long term lease (that was then voided two years later after new ownership took control of the team).

so their clause was never to prevent movement of the team, but to incentivize the owners to not move the team, or else have to pay back money that the league was going to have to put into Tempe Arena

Damn, that would be like $150 Million adjusted for inflation.

To go a step further you could say he was willing to cover 20% of the total budget in Renton (along with renderings). In the case of Oklahoma City I believe we’re at a static $50M number with a open ended budget that I personally don’t believe will come in under $1.5B for the build alone. So as the cost of the arena climbs the ownership’s percentage of contributions become less.

Personally, I’m not so fixated on the cost as much as what we’re getting for our money. I would like to know if we’re getting just an arena or a world class interactive venue. With construction costs like they are at the moment there is no way to really gauge what they have planned.

Why didn’t Clay Bennett come with a plan like he did in Renton? He committed $100M in that case toward a $500M arena at the time. Why wasn’t that same path followed in our case?

Because they knew there was no way in hell that one would pass lol.

Because they knew there was no way in hell that one would pass lol.

So you’re saying the guy we’re partnering with and funding 95% of arena for didn’t have pure motives?

I wonder if these savvy businessmen might try to employ similar tactics in OKC?

What people forget is, Seattle has multiple other pro teams. OKC is the only game in town. True businessmen know how to play with and use leverage. That's what happened here. OKC has no leverage in this. Seattle did. Sure, the Sonics left. But it didn't impact them, hardly at all. Because they have the Seahawks and Mariners. And Microsoft and Amazon and 100s of other huge companies up there. Guess what OKC has? None of that! We have a nice downtown park.

as the raiders showed (more then once) Leagues can't really stop teams from moving at all ..

Except when they do. See post #2328 and Sacremento ownership stopped from relocating Kings to Seattle.

Except when they do. See post #2328 and Sacremento ownership stopped from relocating Kings to Seattle.

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

Not really the same scenario. The Maloofs couldn't afford to run the team anymore in Sacramento, Not the same scenario at all. The mayor of Sacramento was a former NBA player, and used that, as well as another Sacramento billionaire to help convince the owners not to move. The Kings also never put a new arena option in front of voters or on the table.

Does OKC have these same pluses on their side? No. The Thunder are putting an effort in front of voters to build a new arena, which, if it does not pass, will be used aas evidence to the Board of Governors that the city doesn't support the team, the exact same way it as used to get the Thunder. Sacramento Kings have been there a lot longer than the Thunder have been here.

If you are banking on the NBA blocking the move, you will be gravely, gravely mistaken.

What people forget is, Seattle has multiple other pro teams. OKC is the only game in town. True businessmen know how to play with and use leverage. That's what happened here. OKC has no leverage in this. Seattle did. Sure, the Sonics left. But it didn't impact them, hardly at all. Because they have the Seahawks and Mariners. And Microsoft and Amazon and 100s of other huge companies up there. Guess what OKC has? None of that! We have a nice downtown park.

I certainly didn’t forget that and fully understand we have zero leverage.

It feels like we’re stuck in a crappy but fortunate situation, if that makes sense. I’m just disappointed with the chosen path to get this pushed through. It feels like they had 10+ years to formulate a plan and they decided on nearly zero transparency and riding off the success of MAPS. I feel like they should’ve had more faith in the voters of Oklahoma City and created a partnership versus a scenario where they use the Mayor to threaten losing the team and sticking the tax payers with a $300M+ interest payment that could’ve been avoided.

However, I believe that’s the best course if you want to contribute nothing materially toward the financial burden and still maintain a ton of control over the design outcome.

I certainly didn’t forget that and fully understand we have zero leverage.

It feels like we’re stuck in a crappy but fortunate situation, if that makes sense. I’m just disappointed with the chosen path to get this pushed through. It feels like they had 10+ years to formulate a plan and they decided on nearly zero transparency and riding off the success of MAPS. I feel like they should’ve had more faith in the voters of Oklahoma City and created a partnership versus a scenario where they use the Mayor to threaten losing the team and sticking the tax payers with a $300M+ interest payment that could’ve been avoided.

However, I believe that’s the best course if you want to contribute nothing materially toward the financial burden and still maintain a ton of control over the design outcome.

Oh, I agree. I wish our owners were more altruistic. It sucks that we are being fed a crap sandwich. It is unfortunately necessary to vote yes. Losing the Thunder would be very detrimental to OKC's image. Stealing a team, then losing it 15 years alter? Would be a very bad look.

Plus, a new arena is needed. The Paycom Center was a barebones build in 2002. Hard to add anything else, and can't fix the dock issues and logistical issues that keep OKC from having major concerts. The big stage and design shows go to Tulsa (see Bieber and Bad Bunny and U2 and others).

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

Not really the same scenario. The Maloofs couldn't afford to run the team anymore in Sacramento, Not the same scenario at all. The mayor of Sacramento was a former NBA player, and used that, as well as another Sacramento billionaire to help convince the owners not to move. The Kings also never put a new arena option in front of voters or on the table.

Does OKC have these same pluses on their side? No. The Thunder are putting an effort in front of voters to build a new arena, which, if it does not pass, will be used aas evidence to the Board of Governors that the city doesn't support the team, the exact same way it as used to get the Thunder. Sacramento Kings have been there a lot longer than the Thunder have been here.

If you are banking on the NBA blocking the move, you will be gravely, gravely mistaken.

There’s a big difference, though, between blocking the move and telling the stakeholders to take another crack at a revised deal.

The State should absolutely be chipping in 300 or 400 million, and they almost certainly would in a 2024 revision. No reason for OKC Taxpayers to eat 100% of a **** Sandwich.

The deal we have right now feels like hero ball is being played - on the part of Holt and The Chamber. They should have asked The State for some help, but refused to do so for legacy purposes.

There’s a big difference, though, between blocking the move and telling the stakeholders to take another crack at a revised deal.

The State should absolutely be chipping in 300 or 400 million, and they almost certainly would in a 2024 revision. No reason for OKC Taxpayers to eat 100% of a **** Sandwich.

The deal we have right now feels like hero ball is being played - on the part of Holt and The Chamber. They should have asked The State for some help, but refused to do so for legacy purposes.

Holt knows it wouldn't fly. No way the state would help. They don't want to find education, let alone an arena in OKC. We know how rural-centric the Oklahoma legislature is, and how Tulsa-centric our governor is. No way this would pass at the state level. OKC is thriving without any help from the state who keeps shipping quality jobs to Tulsa, because the governor is pro-Tulsa. No way he would sign something benefitting mostly OKC.

Respectfully...

The NBA isn't the NFL, and we have no idea how their bylaws and rules are written.

The NBA has run the tightest ship in Major Sports for 40 years. I can't imagine they will break ranks now.

The NBA is not going to give up an expansion market. Take Seattle, Las Vegas and Louisville off the table.

Now, where is the Thunder going to go?

Respectfully...

The NBA isn't the NFL, and we have no idea how their bylaws and rules are written.

The NBA has run the tightest ship in Major Sports for 40 years. I can't imagine they will break ranks now.

The NBA is not going to give up an expansion market. Take Seattle, Las Vegas and Louisville off the table.

Now, where is the Thunder going to go?

OKC being moved absolutely does not mean they give up an expansion market. OKC -> Seattle, the Supersonics return as an exciting young team to a city that has been dying to have Basketball return. The Las Vegas expansion franchise is an obvious no brainer and the second team could be more than a dozen other markets many of which have nicer arenas that are ready to go. We do not have the leverage as a city, and we especially don't have the leverage as a state or metro. The state will not pay for a dime of construction costs. No other city in the metro can even think about trying to fund an arena project at this scale.

Respectfully...

The NBA isn't the NFL, and we have no idea how their bylaws and rules are written.

The NBA has run the tightest ship in Major Sports for 40 years. I can't imagine they will break ranks now.

The NBA is not going to give up an expansion market. Take Seattle, Las Vegas and Louisville off the table.

Now, where is the Thunder going to go?

This is in context of expansion, but I imagine any of these cities would love to add an NBA team via relocation as well:

https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/nba-expansion-largest-markets-without-team/

This is in context of expansion, but I imagine any of these cities would love to add an NBA team via relocation as well:

https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/nba-expansion-largest-markets-without-team/Vegas always seems to be able to pull off (buy) anything they want. I would think they would drool over getting a young, almost ready to compete team with a plan to get the rest of the way there vs getting an expansion team they have to build from the ground up. If the Thunder was offered I bet Vegas would work like crazy to figure out how to get them if they wanted to. Plus the value of the Thunder would increase quite a bit the moment the papers were signed.

This is in context of expansion, but I imagine any of these cities would love to add an NBA team via relocation as well:

https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/nba-expansion-largest-markets-without-team/

With the exception of Hartford-New Haven, every city listed has either direct NHL and/or 2 other league competition. Hartford is considered too close to Boston for a BIG 4 team. At least, it always has been, and was when the Whalers left for Raleigh in the late 1990s. Finding an arena that will provide a better stream than OKC already has is almost impossible if the city has an NHL tenant already. Add in competition from MLB or the NFL and the population base that can fund the NBA is slim. Next to none.

Then you have to figure out if the no league city has an unleased arena that could make more money than OKC already does. Again-next to none IMO.

First game of the season is tonight in Chicago. I will be watching on Bally. I wonder if we will see YES campaign ads? Deadline for voter registration is November 17, so if they want to capture first-time voters - season start is a good time.

Vegas always seems to be able to pull off (buy) anything they want. I would think they would drool over getting a young, almost ready to compete team with a plan to get the rest of the way there vs getting an expansion team they have to build from the ground up. If the Thunder was offered I bet Vegas would work like crazy to figure out how to get them if they wanted to. Plus the value of the Thunder would increase quite a bit the moment the papers were signed.

Find the arena and make it pencil out. Run the real numbers. And remember, Las Vegas is not only a city with just a couple million people, and soon to become 3 league, if the Athletics move there, but also the Entertainment Capitol of the World! The most competitive market on earth for the leisure dollar.

Vegas always seems to be able to pull off (buy) anything they want. I would think they would drool over getting a young, almost ready to compete team with a plan to get the rest of the way there vs getting an expansion team they have to build from the ground up. If the Thunder was offered I bet Vegas would work like crazy to figure out how to get them if they wanted to. Plus the value of the Thunder would increase quite a bit the moment the papers were signed.

Yeah, whatever market gets the Thunder, they should be light years ahead of any expansion team. Vegas is assumed to be an expansion city, but I'm sure if the Thunder relocation and expansion are on the same timeline, they'd prefer the Thunder. That'll probably just come down to what the NBA wants.

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

How is knowing who negotiated on behalf of the voters leaps to a futile process? I asked who not what.

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

Not really the same scenario. The Maloofs couldn't afford to run the team anymore in Sacramento, Not the same scenario at all. The mayor of Sacramento was a former NBA player, and used that, as well as another Sacramento billionaire to help convince the owners not to move. The Kings also never put a new arena option in front of voters or on the table.

Does OKC have these same pluses on their side? No. The Thunder are putting an effort in front of voters to build a new arena, which, if it does not pass, will be used aas evidence to the Board of Governors that the city doesn't support the team, the exact same way it as used to get the Thunder. Sacramento Kings have been there a lot longer than the Thunder have been here.

If you are banking on the NBA blocking the move, you will be gravely, gravely mistaken.

Your reply indicates you did not bother to read the posted story in #2328.
Had you read it you would know tht Steve Ballmer wanted to move the team not the Maloofs.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

Your reply indicates you did not bother to read the posted story in #2328.
Had you read it you would know tht Steve Ballmer wanted to move the team not the Maloofs.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

I did. Hence why I noted that Sacramento had an ex-NBA player go to bat for the city, and he also had a billionaire with him who would help keep the team in Sacramento. Hence why they told them to work it out with the city. OKC doesn't have those advantages. No one is stepping up to help keep them here by buying them from the owners, or anything like that.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/us/nba-sacramento-kings/index.html#:~:text=Sacramento%20rejoices%20as%20NB A%20board%20rejects%20Kings%20move%20to%20Seattle,-Greg%20Botelho%2C%20CNN&text=NBA%20Commissioner%20David%20Stern%20cited,th e%20Kings%20move%20was%20rejected.

So if the city votes down the new arena proposal, that takes away another reason the NBA voted against the Kings moving - city buy-in. If the citizens vote this down, then the city buy0in is gone, and the team will move fairly easily.

The article I posted mentioned reasons they stayed in Sacramento. OKC doesn't have those if they vote down the arena proposal.

I did. Hence why I noted that Sacramento had an ex-NBA player go to bat for the city, and he also had a billionaire with him who would help keep the team in Sacramento. Hence why they told them to work it out with the city. OKC doesn't have those advantages. No one is stepping up to help keep them here by buying them from the owners, or anything like that.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/us/nba-sacramento-kings/index.html#:~:text=Sacramento%20rejoices%20as%20NB A%20board%20rejects%20Kings%20move%20to%20Seattle,-Greg%20Botelho%2C%20CNN&text=NBA%20Commissioner%20David%20Stern%20cited,th e%20Kings%20move%20was%20rejected.

So if the city votes down the new arena proposal, that takes away another reason the NBA voted against the Kings moving - city buy-in. If the citizens vote this down, then the city buy0in is gone, and the team will move fairly easily.

The article I posted mentioned reasons they stayed in Sacramento. OKC doesn't have those if they vote down the arena proposal.

And more importantly the relocation committee nixed the move. PBC can't just move the team without the league blessing the move, contrary to what the NFL Raiders have done.

And more importantly the relocation committee nixed the move. PBC can't just move the team without the league blessing the move, contrary to what the NFL Raiders have done.

If the city votes this down, they can sell, and that party can move it, because the city didn't buy-in.

https://www.greenberglawoffice.com/nba-relocation/#:~:text=The%20question%20whether%20to%20approve,a gainst%20and%208%20for%20relocation.

Article 7 of the NBA Constitution and By-laws outline the procedure for a requested relocation, including the engagement of the NBA Relocation Committee. The question whether to approve the proposed relocation is decided by a majority vote of all the members, while a sale or transfer of a team requires a two-thirds vote.

The last proposed relocation, the Sacramento Kings to Seattle, was voted upon in May of 2013 and rejected by a vote of 22 against and 8 for relocation. Any relocation requires sixteen “yes” votes.

I mean, if people want to leave it up to that, then go ahead and vote no.

If a "No" vote prevails, it's not going to be 70/30 ratio. At best "No" prevails 52/48. Nobody is going to leave this vote thinking the city is unwilling to build a new arena.

I do wonder if there is pressure from the league on this deal though. The league would require a relocation if Paycom is not generating (or going to generate) enough revenue in comparison to the rest of the league and I'm not sure the grace period the team would get once they're no longer profitable enough.