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

please let me know when ballmer was the owner of the kings?

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.

the league can't "require" relocation ..

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.

restraining free trade is not legal in this country ..

Nearing 100 pages, what number does it get to come December 12? Over/under 5 comments asking about renderings? lol

restraining free trade is not legal in this country ..

Not Necessarily

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Baseball_Club_v._National_League

Not Necessarily

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Baseball_Club_v._National_League

key point

This case is the main reason why MLB has not faced any competitor leagues since 1922, and MLB, to date, remains the only American sports league with such an antitrust exemption.

please let me know when ballmer was the owner of the kings?

I wanted to accurately quote the posted aricle, but thanks for that

key point

This case is the main reason why MLB has not faced any competitor leagues since 1922, and MLB, to date, remains the only American sports league with such an antitrust exemption.

And when the NFL was found to be in violation of anti trust laws the USFL was awatded $1.00 which was trebled to 3. That massive judgement really hurt the NFL bottom line, haha. The NBA and NHL were put on notice.

Nearing 100 pages, what number does it get to come December 12? Over/under 5 comments asking about renderings? lol

I don't think anything is close to the Streetcar thread (380 pages I think). But this arena thread will probably be the new page leader by the time it is built.

I am 100% in favor of this arena proposal and will vote yes.

People and companies give up their legal rights in business negations on a regular basis. Collective Bargaining Agreements usually involve giving up rights of freedom of conduct and job movement in exchange for financial gain. Drug testing and player contracts that control job movement for more than one day are most obvious. Team owners agree to such limits when they join a league.

I can't imagine the Thunder ownership is engaged in an attempt to build a really crappy and overpriced area in order for them to screw the citizens of Oklahoma. What part of this makes you stand up and say that you know they are corrupt or incompetent? That you know City staff and City Council are idiots, and we MUST have all aspects of this arena fully presented to us in advance? Because we KNOW how modern arenas operate and we KNOW how they will function in the next 50 years?

I don't think anything is close to the Streetcar thread (380 pages I think). But this arena thread will probably be the new page leader by the time it is built.

Rightfully so, I’m my opinion. It has the potential to continue the trajectory our city is on and elevate us to another level. Although, I’m very discontent with certain aspects I really hope we get this right.

restraining free trade is not legal in this country ..

I spent a bit of time today reading the NBA by-laws. Team owners purchase a membership in the NBA in order to own an NBA franchise. The by-laws refer to owners as members, not owners. Memberships in any organization come with agreements to follow the organization's rules. All teams are franchises granted by the NBA. Not independent businesses able to pursue their own business pursuits. As franchises the NBA has wide reaching authority to make the rules. The NBA isn't breaking any free trade laws.

I’ll be voting yes.

In my forty years, I’ve learned that there’s a difference between being “right” and being wise.

I love taking my family to Thunder games.

I love OKC.

My wife doesn’t really enjoy the actual bball being played but she loves the energy of the event. I watch the court… and she watches us cheer. So… we go to games.

We don’t like the ice storms and severe weather in OKC.

Nevertheless, we stay because the excitement of living in an up and coming city… appeals to us more than living in an already fully established city… where our impact and our opportunities are less needed… noticeable… and less colorful to my kids. We’re raising them to be impactful and engaged. So… we stay.

Hope the vote passes. Hope the Thunder stay.

Not fearful of any negative result. Just hopeful because we love our quality of life here in this city.

I don’t need perfect or even near perfect conditions to live here or to vote yes on this proposal.

Nothing about our city, or any other city, is perfect. But… OKC is currently perfect for us.

Respect to those who see it differently and I believe that you love OKC the same as me.

I spent a bit of time today reading the NBA by-laws. Team owners purchase a membership in the NBA in order to own an NBA franchise. The by-laws refer to owners as members, not owners. Memberships in any organization come with agreements to follow the organization's rules. All teams are franchises granted by the NBA. Not independent businesses able to pursue their own business pursuits. As franchises the NBA has wide reaching authority to make the rules. The NBA isn't breaking any free trade laws.

al davis was a member of the nfl (and by the way the nba took "owners" out of all their documents because of politics )

he moved the Raiders to LA from oakland with OUT nfl permission . .then moved them back with out NFL permission ..

And when the NFL was found to be in violation of anti trust laws the USFL was awatded $1.00 which was trebled to 3. That massive judgement really hurt the NFL bottom line, haha. The NBA and NHL were put on notice.

RIP Al davis .... but despite the NFL's wishes he moved the Raiders to LA then back to Oakland with out the NFL's permission

RIP Al davis .... but despite the NFL's wishes he moved the Raiders to LA then back to Oakland with out the NFL's permission

And how the NFL operates has nothing to do with or is relevant to the NBA.

I’ll be voting yes.

In my forty years, I’ve learned that there’s a difference between being “right” and being wise.

I love taking my family to Thunder games.

I love OKC.

My wife doesn’t really enjoy the actual bball being played but she loves the energy of the event. I watch the court… and she watches us cheer. So… we go to games.

We don’t like the ice storms and severe weather in OKC.

Nevertheless, we stay because the excitement of living in an up and coming city… appeals to us more than living in an already fully established city… where our impact and our opportunities are less needed… noticeable… and less colorful to my kids. We’re raising them to be impactful and engaged. So… we stay.

Hope the vote passes. Hope the Thunder stay.

Not fearful of any negative result. Just hopeful because we love our quality of life here in this city.

I don’t need perfect or even near perfect conditions to live here or to vote yes on this proposal.

Nothing about our city, or any other city, is perfect. But… OKC is currently perfect for us.

Respect to those who see it differently and I believe that you love OKC the same as me.

This might possibly be the most positive, uplifting, and neutral post that is not condescending, antagonistic, or boastful, that I have ever seen on OKC Talk. Thank you.

This might possibly be the most positive, uplifting, and neutral post that is not condescending, antagonistic, or boastful, that I have ever seen on OKC Talk. Thank you.
I agree completely!

I am also voting yes. Having the Thunder has done so much for our city that it would be a step backwards for us. I see all the new developments and new to market retail coming here and most of it is because the Thunder helped us emerge as a legitimate city. A new arena will also give us the ability to attract the concerts that pass us by for markets like Dallas. New Hotels, restaurants, FAM, OKANA, 2024 Olympic events and dozens of company expansions are just a few of the signs of an NBA city. OKC was one of a handful of cities that grew by 100000 people between 2010 and 2020. We are just getting started!

I'm voting yes and I really hope it passes. But I'm concerned. I know it's not scientific but listening to the negative talk I've heard by radio callers and the same from a large number of people at the places we go to eat/drink I wonder how widespread the negativity is. I would think sports radio callers and sports bar/grill patrons would be slam-dunk votes for the arena.

I'm voting yes and I really hope it passes. But I'm concerned. I know it's not scientific but listening to the negative talk I've heard by radio callers and the same from a large number of people at the places we go to eat/drink I wonder how widespread the negativity is. I would think sports radio callers and sports bar/grill patrons would be slam-dunk votes for the arena.

And I think they probably would be yes voters in a better economic environment. But a large number of folks are having to sell stocks, dip into savings accounts, and/or pick up a 2nd or 3rd job just to make rent and put food on the table.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/16/54percent-of-americans-are-dipping-into-savings-to-pay-for-everyday-expenses.html

Against that type of backdrop, the “this isn’t a tax increase, you’ll be fine if you pay for your share of a new arena” argument rings a bit hollow.

We don't have a lot to go on like specs for new arena. The square footage will be one of the main issues for the new arena. City is talking about $900 million which will be financed thru a loan, repaid thru MAPS extension penny sales tax future collections.


Going to vote 'yes' because so far, our city's leadership have been good stewards of the MAPS funds. Although this won't follow the traditional MAPS 'pay as you go 'format--we're going to need a new arena.

Impressed with Chicago's United Center while watching the opening game last night.

If we're building a state-of-the-are $900 million arena, build something comparable to the United Center:



NBA basketball: 20,917
NHL Hockey: 19,717
Concerts: 23,500
Square footage: 960,000

Oklahoma City will own this arena. Would like to invest in an arena that is capable of expanded seating, regardless if you have an initial capacity of 18,500. Leave some areas open where temporary risers can be used to expand capacity.

Heard that the new arena will have most of its seating on the lower level with less capacity in the upper decks.

Also an arena that is capable of hosting NHL hockey as a future co-tenant or replacement anchor tenant


https://blog.ticketmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/United-Center-Bulls_BSP3742-1024x681.jpg


NBA basketball: 20,917
https://assets1.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2010/09/27/daf15f99-028f-45d4-a3e7-9c0745add645/thumbnail/640x361/573e28d5da85c08e3c44c2aaacfe554f/united-center-crowd.jpg?v=18a5d3569ab1a3ca759fe14d213f7845



NHL Hockey: 19,717
https://live.staticflickr.com/2667/4164645937_fce6291915_b.jpg


Concerts: 23,500

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/United_Center_1.jpg/800px-United_Center_1.jpg

This has that 1930's facade look of the Civic Center Music Hall and City Hall; however, where it is built, you could make it blend with the surrounding structures.

Build for the future, therefore we won't have to replace this arena; it will have the money-making amenities
to sustain an anchor tenant or co-tenants long term. A larger capacity arena will allow OKC more leverage to
bid for a variety of future events.





.

And I think they probably would be yes voters in a better economic environment. But a large number of folks are having to sell stocks, dip into savings accounts, and/or pick up a 2nd or 3rd job just to make rent and put food on the table.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/16/54percent-of-americans-are-dipping-into-savings-to-pay-for-everyday-expenses.html

Against that type of backdrop, the “this isn’t a tax increase, you’ll be fine if you pay for your share of a new arena” argument rings a bit hollow.

lol

Seems the call in media I have seen or heard the last couple years has gone increasingly old and conservative. Old like my age.....geezer.

I think trends in arena construction are going away from maximizing attendance. Rather it is going for making the in person experience so good that watching on modern TV isn't so much superior as it is today

Seems the call in media I have seen or heard the last couple years has gone increasingly old and conservative. Old like my age.....geezer.

I think trends in arena construction are going away from maximizing attendance. Rather it is going for making the in person experience so good that watching on modern TV isn't so much superior as it is today

It's 100% moving away from larger capacity and towards experience. I dk why Laramie also posts about larger capacity, but there is 0% chance we are building a 20k seat arena. 17-18k.

Here is what an actual economist has to offer on this topic:

LINK (https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2023/10/26/voters-can-continue-path-of-maps-successes-by-approving-nba-arena/71305890007/)


Economist: After all the good OKC voters have seen over the past 30 years, why stop now?

Robert Dauffenbach
Guest columnist

I wonder what Oklahoma City Mayor Ron Norick was thinking when he went out on a limb 30 years ago to propose the first MAPS initiative.

He and other city leaders were probably frustrated at the time and willing to try just about anything to pull the city out of economic doldrums still lingering from the Oil Bust. And they might have still felt the sting of United Airlines’ decision to build its $1 billion maintenance center in Indianapolis rather than OKC.

Oklahoma City was getting used to disappointment in those days, but the tide began to turn in December 1993 when voters approved the first list of Metropolitan Area Projects. Financed through a one-cent sales tax, the projects included a ballpark, an arena, a canal through Bricktown, dams and locks along the Oklahoma River, a downtown library and the list goes on.

Today, MAPS has its own Wikipedia page, and the historic initiative has become a popular example of placemaking: projects that improve a community’s quality of life and attractiveness. And even today, as Oklahoma City considers a new arena development, the success of MAPS is top of mind.

As we all know, the first MAPS was only the beginning. Voters went on to pass MAPS for Kids, MAPS 3 and MAPS 4. When MAPS 4 ends, Oklahoma City’s MAPS investments will have totaled $2.9 billion, attracting several billion dollars more in private investment, studies have found.

To investigate further the economic impact of these 30 years of placemaking activity, I looked at population growth and personal income gains in OKC and compared them against 86 other U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with 1993 populations of a half million or more. I found that Oklahoma City’s personal income growth, inflation-adjusted, has jumped 124% since 1993, outpacing 70% of the metro areas in my study.

Furthermore, Oklahoma City’s personal income growth is greater than nearby MSAs, such as Tulsa; Kansas City, Missouri; Wichita, Kansas; St. Louis; and Little Rock, Arkansas. Indeed, OKC’s growth is more comparable to Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and it is slightly ahead of old rival Indianapolis.

OKC's proven MAPS track record

The point of all this is that Oklahoma City has learned a lot over the past three decades. By investing in developments that bring people together, beautify, create community spirit and improve quality of life, Oklahoma City has planted seeds that grow wealth.

Let’s face it. It’s not easy for a city to grow in fly-over country, but that’s what Oklahoma City has done and is doing, and OKC has its community’s leadership to thank for that. Voters have followed Mayor Norick and other leaders on an epic journey of renewal, and now they have an opportunity to continue the adventure behind Mayor David Holt and the OKC Thunder.

MAPS successes of the past should foster trust in leaders’ vision for the future. Considering all the good that voters have seen over the past 30 years, there’s only one question to answer. Why stop now?

Robert Dauffenbach is professor emeritus of entrepreneurship at the University of Oklahoma’s Tom Love Department of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. He also is the former sr. associate dean for economic development and director of the Center for Economic and Management Research at OU’s Michael F. Price College of Business

And here were Mayor Holt’s comments when posting the preceding opinion piece to Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy4hqNoLlg4/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==):


I've been around the civic life of this city for two decades. And I have seen a recurring phenomenon. Whenever we propose to invest in our own community, there is always a cottage industry of outsiders ready to tell us why we shouldn't.

First of all, it never escapes me that these people always live in much larger cities that have invested in themselves and already have the things that we want. Seems funny that they are so adamant we shouldn't have those same things (like, say, a professional sports team).

Second of all, their arguments always require us to completely ignore the revolutionary change we have seen in our city these past 30 years.

Look, I work in academia. I respect evidence and data. And any argument that ignores the clear evidence of the Oklahoma City renaissance is not a good argument. So that's why we don't typically listen to outsiders. They have their agenda, and we have ours.

Our agenda is doing what is right for OKC. And that's why I wholeheartedly agree with well-respected economist Robert Dauffenbach, who lives right here in Oklahoma, when he says "Why stop now?"

Vote YES December 12th.

I agree with the professor here in that MAPS for civic projects work great, but he's conflating MAPS with the Thunder presence. No one is arguing that MAPS overall need to be removed or stopped. And he's also conflating MAPS growth with growth spurred by the Thunders' presence, all the while ignoring economic studies (by other actual economists) that show that public funds for sports stadiums don't produce a positive benefit on employment, (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.14.3.95) economic development (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547) or property values (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046217301175?via%3Dihub).


The simple solution is to keep MAPS and continue using it on projects that help keep our development going. Spending $1b on a stadium doesn't do that.

Meanwhile, Holt continues to make the logically fallacious argument of correlation equaling causation. To say that the Thunder caused OKC's growth is incredibly ignorant, just as waiving away any evidence to the contrary as "outsiders". I've been a big fan of Holt for years, but his horrendous and disingenuous attempts to deflect well-founded (and empirically-backed!) criticism leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, especially when he blocks anyone who tries to argue to the contrary.

I agree with the professor here in that MAPS for civic projects work great, but he's conflating MAPS with the Thunder presence. No one is arguing that MAPS overall need to be removed or stopped. And he's also conflating MAPS growth with growth spurred by the Thunders' presence, all the while ignoring economic studies (by other actual economists) that show that public funds for sports stadiums don't produce a positive benefit on employment, (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.14.3.95) economic development (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4022547) or property values (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046217301175?via%3Dihub).


The simple solution is to keep MAPS and continue using it on projects that help keep our development going. Spending $1b on a stadium doesn't do that.

Meanwhile, Holt continues to make the logically fallacious argument of correlation equaling causation. To say that the Thunder caused OKC's growth is incredibly ignorant, just as waiving away any evidence to the contrary as "outsiders". I've been a big fan of Holt for years, but his horrendous and disingenuous attempts to deflect well-founded (and empirically-backed!) criticism leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, especially when he blocks anyone who tries to argue to the contrary.

Well said. And I would have thought that a Law School Dean would have a slightly better command of the First Amendment (see, e.g., https://www.meyersnave.com/knight-v-trump-second-circuit-sets-rules-on-blocking-followers-from-social-media-accounts/) but I’ve certainly been wrong before.

It's 100% moving away from larger capacity and towards experience. I dk why Laramie also posts about larger capacity, but there is 0% chance we are building a 20k seat arena. 17-18k.

I feel like Jerry Jones created the blueprint for the modern stadium/arena. That is disappointing for the majority of the tax base funding this arena as the more affordable tickets become less accessible. I guess that is the business part of this equation.

the league can't "require" relocation ..

Disband then? I don't know all the details, but NBA teams are required to meet certain revenue thresholds and if not, they don't get to participate in league revenue and/or the league. I don't know if the Thunder are anywhere near being close to that threshold, but if they are, or are projected to be, it could be the NBA pushing PBC to come to this agreement as quickly as possible. If the NBA is pushing this too, it's the kind of information that can help voters make informed decisions.

I find it curious that Holt chose to be antagonistic in his opening paragraphs of endorsing the editorial

That tells me the polling has him concerned and I am quite sure he has access to detailed demos etc

Now he basically has no choice but to double down since the city and ball club ownership have apparently decided that December 12 is all or nothing

It’s a hell of a gamble and entirely in character of OKC’s DNA since April 22, 1889

So now we wait for D Day December 12

If the yes campaign is smart (and of course they are) hopefully they will canvass the block around the arena before and after home games leading up to the 12th (especially after wins—yes that matters IMO)

This is playing out to be more fascinating than I ever expected and not dissimilar to an actual Thunder Game 7

Still a little shocked that the city has chosen this route but here we go!

Disband then? I don't know all the details, but NBA teams are required to meet certain revenue thresholds and if not, they don't get to participate in league revenue and/or the league. I don't know if the Thunder are anywhere near being close to that threshold, but if they are, or are projected to be, it could be the NBA pushing PBC to come to this agreement as quickly as possible. If the NBA is pushing this too, it's the kind of information that can help voters make informed decisions.
Can you cite where the NBA can disband a team for not making enough revenue. I've scanned the constitution, bylaws and CBA and the closest thing I can find is that a low performing team has to pay at least 70% of what the higher performing teams pay into the revenue sharing pot or the owners must make up the difference out of pocket.

FWIW, I am now getting sponsored ads from "Keep OKC Big League" on Facebook with many of the same graphics we've seen about the history of entertainment facilities in OKC. So the campaign seems to be moving into full swing.

Can you cite where the NBA can disband a team for not making enough revenue. I've scanned the constitution, bylaws and CBA and the closest thing I can find is that a low performing team has to pay at least 70% of what the higher performing teams pay into the revenue sharing pot or the owners must make up the difference out of pocket.

What I'm trying to get at is that if the Thunder are missing the 70% threshold routinely, the league would step in at some point, not sure what that would look like, but, yes, if the Thunder were severely underperforming financially, the NBA has the authority to take severe action.

More importantly, regardless of what the consequence would be, if the NBA is communicating to the team that they need to be making $X by Y date and there's no way to do that in the current arena, then providing some degree of that info to the public and expressing why a new arena will help curb the shortfalls would provide additional reasoning to voters to vote Yes.

What I'm trying to get at is that if the Thunder are missing the 70% threshold routinely, the league would step in at some point, not sure what that would look like, but, yes, if the Thunder were severely underperforming financially, the NBA has the authority to take severe action.

More importantly, regardless of what the consequence would be, if the NBA is communicating to the team that they need to be making $X by Y date and there's no way to do that in the current arena, then providing some degree of that info to the public and expressing why a new arena will help curb the shortfalls would provide additional reasoning to voters to vote Yes.

https://www.forbes.com/lists/nba-valuations/?sh=24c4b8716982

Interesting seeing the numbers for teams like Sacramento, Orlando, and Detroit.

All three of which have some of the newest arenas in the NBA. Looks like a new arena is worth roughly $20M/year in operating income for an NBA franchise.

What I'm trying to get at is that if the Thunder are missing the 70% threshold routinely, the league would step in at some point, not sure what that would look like, but, yes, if the Thunder were severely underperforming financially, the NBA has the authority to take severe action.

More importantly, regardless of what the consequence would be, if the NBA is communicating to the team that they need to be making $X by Y date and there's no way to do that in the current arena, then providing some degree of that info to the public and expressing why a new arena will help curb the shortfalls would provide additional reasoning to voters to vote Yes.
The Thunder aren't "severely underperforming". There are 5 teams that made less revenue than the Thunder last year. Considering OKC's comparative market size the Thunder just aren't doing badly. I'm all for finding reasons to get the arena passed but suggesting the NBA might be on the verge of taking some kind of action regarding the Thunder's revenue isn't a reason. Trying to make any point that the owners are possibly having to make up any difference, which I'm not even sure is the case, could backfire big time. A lot of voters seem to already have an issue with the "wealthy owners" getting such a break.

I think the Thunder has always made money. And I think they have made more than they would have in Seattle. Seems like US leagues have about 10 teams that make a LOT of money, and the next 20 are pretty close together. I think we should make sure that the Thunder can keep making money for the next 30 years.

Ticket pricing and attendee spend is studied at a granular level by every league and team. They have a solid understanding of when they price the customer out of attending. They ain't gonna do it. Every unused ticket is a lost revenue opportunity that will never return. They take those prices to the grumble level, but below the stay at home level.

I think OU football operates in the same manner. One of the biggest enterprises in college football and spending to stay that way.

Oklahoma is a state that is very supportive of sports and has been very successful at the highest levels they compete in.

I think the Thunder has always made money. And I think they have made more than they would have in Seattle. Seems like US leagues have about 10 teams that make a LOT of money, and the next 20 are pretty close together. I think we should make sure that the Thunder can keep making money for the next 30 years.

Ticket pricing and attendee spend is studied at a granular level by every league and team. They have a solid understanding of when they price the customer out of attending. They ain't gonna do it. Every unused ticket is a lost revenue opportunity that will never return. They take those prices to the grumble level, but below the stay at home level.

I think OU football operates in the same manner. One of the biggest enterprises in college football and spending to stay that way.

Oklahoma is a state that is very supportive of sports and has been very successful at the highest levels they compete in.

another revenue issue that the thunder have is the local tv deal just can't compete with most of the other markets ..

I think the Thunder has always made money. And I think they have made more than they would have in Seattle. Seems like US leagues have about 10 teams that make a LOT of money, and the next 20 are pretty close together. I think we should make sure that the Thunder can keep making money for the next 30 years.

Ticket pricing and attendee spend is studied at a granular level by every league and team. They have a solid understanding of when they price the customer out of attending. They ain't gonna do it. Every unused ticket is a lost revenue opportunity that will never return. They take those prices to the grumble level, but below the stay at home level.

I think OU football operates in the same manner. One of the biggest enterprises in college football and spending to stay that way.

Oklahoma is a state that is very supportive of sports and has been very successful at the highest levels they compete in.

For comparison at OU:
40-50 yard line ticket lower bowl - $600
Donation - $1,000


40-50 yard line ticket in the lounge area - $700
Donation - $2,500

The lounge gives you free hotdogs/hamburgers and an indoor place to go. This is what teams are moving towards as a whole. Creating various experiences throughout the arena that allow for significant price increases and small cost increases.

With a city owned facility could they attempt to sell seat licenses like Golden State?

For comparison at OU:
40-50 yard line ticket lower bowl - $600
Donation - $1,000


40-50 yard line ticket in the lounge area - $700
Donation - $2,500

The lounge gives you free hotdogs/hamburgers and an indoor place to go. This is what teams are moving towards as a whole. Creating various experiences throughout the arena that allow for significant price increases and small cost increases.

With a city owned facility could they attempt to sell seat licenses like Golden State?

40-50 yard line ticket lower bowl requires a 1,500 per seat donation

40-50 yard line ticket lower bowl requires a 1,500 per seat donation

Not in the newly opened former student section it’s a $1k donation.

The university picks up another $10M-$15M per year, if they can get 10k people to commit to the lounge area.

Not in the newly opened former student section it’s a $1k donation.

The university picks up another $10M-$15M per year, if they can get 10k people to commit to the lounge area.

i see that my bad .. i was looking at the west side ..

The Thunder aren't "severely underperforming". There are 5 teams that made less revenue than the Thunder last year. Considering OKC's comparative market size the Thunder just aren't doing badly. I'm all for finding reasons to get the arena passed but suggesting the NBA might be on the verge of taking some kind of action regarding the Thunder's revenue isn't a reason. Trying to make any point that the owners are possibly having to make up any difference, which I'm not even sure is the case, could backfire big time. A lot of voters seem to already have an issue with the "wealthy owners" getting such a break.

Not saying the Thunder are currently severely underperforming, but perhaps the push for this to happen as quickly as possible is due to some pressure from the NBA based on future modeling. If not then it's not a valid point, but the way it's currently presented is coming off as "wealthy owners just want more money" as it could be. Helping a team stay competitive financially would be enticing for "budget-minded" voters than "we should build new arenas every 30 years".

i see that my bad .. i was looking at the west side ..

No worries. I guess with all these early kickoffs you should get a $500 discount for sitting in the sun. lol

No worries. I guess with all these early kickoffs you should get a $500 discount for sitting in the sun. lol

true statement

I think the Thunder has always made money. And I think they have made more than they would have in Seattle.
.

Probably did make more than if in Seattle because Seattle voted not to build a new Arena to make it possible for them to make even as much as they could in OKC. That is why they moved.

https://arizonasports.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/GettyImages-1235545762-e1688493850356.jpg NHL Oklahoma Coyotes

5. Oklahoma City, Paycom Center, 15,152 and/or Tulsa, BOK Center, 17,096: https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/five-reasonable-destinations-for-the-arizona-coyotes-and-one-pipe-dream/


Let's face it, with the plan for a new arena in Tempe being decisively voted down by area residents, the time has come to seriously consider relocating the Arizona Coyotes.

Playing in a 4,600-capacity college hockey arena with a vague idea about the future isn't going to cut it in a major professional league.


No question, hockey fans in the Valley of the Sun — and they are legion — deserved much better. Can you imagine if your favourite team had gone through nine owners, constant franchise uncertainty and three local relocations in 26 seasons, and had made the playoffs once in its last 11?


One last dim hope remains: Mat Ishbia, the new owner of the NBA's Phoenix Suns and WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, is an owner willing to take chances.

"I would be surprised if Gary Bettman and the NHL, if they haven't already, meet with him to gauge his interest in supporting the idea of turning the Suns' current rink into a facility that could also support the Coyotes," Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman told Jeff Marek on the latest edition of 32 Thoughts: The Podcast. "That would take some work, it might take two summers, it'll take a couple hundred million dollars. ... But I don't think the NHL wants to abandon the Arizona market unless it absolutely has to."

But the facts are the facts: a near-record turnout of residents to a local election spoke loudly and clearly that the Coyotes' future is cloudy. The NHL and the Coyotes expressed similar comments of being "disappointed" in the results.


"We are very disappointed Tempe voters did not approve Propositions 301, 302, and 303," Coyotes president and CEO Xavier Gutierrez said after the vote. "As Tempe Mayor Corey Woods said, this was the best sports deal in Arizona history."

So, what's next? Wild speculation of relocation has been rekindled.

But what makes the most sense? After 27 years, the mission in Arizona has apparently failed, so it's likely time for the team to pack up its gear for good and move out of the state.

With this in mind, we've come up with a helpful list of cities the Coyotes can relocate to, listed with arena and arena capacity.

1. Salt Lake City, Vivint Arena, 14,000: If these were power rankings, this entry would be No. 1, especially since Utah Jazz and Real Salt Lake owner Ryan Smith met in late March with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, as reported by Sportsnet's Elliotte Friedman. And Smith, who bought the building and the Jazz in December 2020, hasn't exactly dampened the enthusiasm, replying to a fan's tweet asking to bring the Stanley Cup Playoffs to Salt Lake City with a cryptic, "In motion."

A move due north by the Coyotes to Salt Lake City would also align with keeping the club in the Western Conference, mark a return to a market rich in hockey history, might well foster a rivalry with the Avalanche and Golden Knights and, although it would be a time-share with the Jazz, there's a decent building available to immediately move into. Sure, it would be the second-oldest building in the league, but there is promise of the Winter Olympics returning to the city, which would bring along with it a modern facility. Plus, there's something to be said for a city that wants a team.


2. Houston, Toyota Center, 17,800: This surely is the most logical destination. The NHL has been dying to move to Houston, the No. 5 U.S. market by population (No. 7 by TV market), for years. Sure, it takes away a mega expansion-team fee, but don't you think we're at peak NHL? We're good at 32 teams. And there hasn't been a passionate interest by owners of the NBA's Rockets to have an NHL tenant in the building, frankly.

But a move to Houston would keep the team in the Western Conference, actually makes for a shorter trip than Phoenix for most fellow Central Division teams, aligns them with the Central time zone and creates an instant rivalry with the Dallas Stars. Heck, hold an outdoor game at one of those outrageous high school football stadiums in the state to kick off the first season. You could even call them the Aeros, or the Houston Howes. Bonus: Arena holds more than 4,600 capacity for NHL games (copy and paste that sentence for all these entries).

3. Sacramento, Golden 1 Center, tbd (17,608 for basketball): The No. 20 TV market is in the mix because Kings owner Vivek Ranadivé apparently visited Ottawa as part of the Senators sales process, which could mean he'd be up for taking on an existing team. This one feels like it works better on paper than in actuality, given there's not much history of hockey in this city or in this particular arena. But the NHL loves California, Sacramento is the No. 20 TV market and you could keep the team in the West. And they'd get to keep the San Jose Sharks company.

4. Kansas City, T-Mobile Center, 17,544: Kansas City seems to get thrown into the mix every time it's rumoured the Coyotes are moving, so why not toss the city in here again? But it does make some sense. T-Mobile is operated by Anschutz Entertainment Group, which owns the Los Angeles Kings and Crypto.com Arena — so there's familiarity with how the NHL does things — and is perfectly suited for hockey. It was built in 2005, too, so is fairly modern. A team here would be in the Central time zone, closer to other teams in the division and also provide a good regional rival to the neighbouring St. Louis Blues.

Problems and challenges that exist with every other plan B arena site in Arizona



.

^^^^

NBA and NHL in the same market is almost always the last of the Big 4 leagues going into a city. They usually directly compete for the arena dates, sponsors, luxury suite rentals, and paying fans. Gotta have a lot of people in the market for that.

^^^^

NBA and NHL in the same market is almost always the last of the Big 4 leagues going into a city. They usually directly compete for the arena dates, sponsors, luxury suite rentals, and paying fans. Gotta have a lot of people in the market for that.

Definitely agree with your statement since I've never known of a U.S. market city with NBA and NHL in one city.

Still believe Tulsa's BOK Center could provide a better fan base than Arizona since it's apparent Phoenix doesn't want the Coyotes.

Mayor Mick Cornett labeled Oklahoma City-Tulsa market as one:

MSA Population: Combined: 2,439,503 = OKC 1,459,380 & TUL- 1,034,123. Using the 1 million support per major league market. Both MSAs have a combined TV (2022) estimated viewership around 1.3 million.

OKC-TUL is equipped with a 439,505 more when you look at a market supporting NBA and NHL It would provide those non NBA fans in both cities a choice.

BOK Center seats 17,096 for NHL; this would provide a better support than a 4,600-capacity college hockey arena, Arizona doesn't seem to have any interest in the NHL.

Oklahoma City yet to be approved arena could be used in 2030 if the NHL isn't successful in T-Town. Personally, I think Tulsa is ready.

BTW: The other four markets -


1. Salt Lake City, Vivint Arena, 14,000 - Market 1,266,191 too small for NBA and NHL.
2. Houston, Toyota Center, 17,800 Has never shown an interest in the NHL.
3. Sacramento, Golden 1 Center, 17,500 - 2,416,702 Too Close to San Jose 89 miles
4. Kansas City, T-Mobile Center, 17,544 - Oversaturated Market with NFL and MLB - 2,209,494
5. Tulsa, BOK Center, 17,096, spinoff for non NBA fans in OKC as additional support. 1,034,123

Tulsa IMO is ready--lots of future manufacturing planned for Tulsa MSA for 2026-30.

Tulsa getting an NHL team would be fun. I think Oklahoma as a whole could support both an NHL and NBA team, but neither of our metros could support both.

BTW: The other four markets -


1. Salt Lake City, Vivint Arena, 14,000 - Market 1,266,191 too small for NBA and NHL.
2. Houston, Toyota Center, 17,800 Has never shown an interest in the NHL.
3. Sacramento, Golden 1 Center, 17,500 - 2,416,702 Too Close to San Jose 89 miles
4. Kansas City, T-Mobile Center, 17,544 - Oversaturated Market with NFL and MLB - 2,209,494
5. Tulsa, BOK Center, 17,096, spinoff for non NBA fans in OKC as additional support. 1,034,123

Tulsa IMO is ready--lots of future manufacturing planned for Tulsa MSA for 2026-30.

Austin is a better NHL opportunity than any of those cities. 2.3 million population, huge Fortune500 corporate presence for sponsor partners, and no other major league sports franchise.

Thunder arena will be adding Empire Slice pizza, does that mean no more Mazzio's?

Thunder arena will be adding Empire Slice pizza, does that mean no more Mazzio's?

Wow, they’ll be asking like $12/slice for Empire

I said before and with the 2-0 start to the season, I will say it again, this team and what they are building is reason enough to vote yes on December 12th!! THUNDER UP BABY!!

Austin is a better NHL opportunity than any of those cities. 2.3 million population, huge Fortune500 corporate presence for sponsor partners, and no other major league sports franchise.

Agreed. With the Stars being the only NHL team in Texas, it gives Austin a professional team, where the NFL and NBA wouldn't expand to Austin with the saturation of existing teams in Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston and MLB with Houston and Dallas.

Is there a reason they aren't running any sort of ads or campaigning for the vote at the Thunder games? I assume there is a reason, but does anyone know?

Is there a reason they aren't running any sort of ads or campaigning for the vote at the Thunder games? I assume there is a reason, but does anyone know?

One would assume Thunder fans would already be for it, wouldn't they? At least a huge majority of them.

One would assume Thunder fans would already be for it, wouldn't they? At least a huge majority of them.

What about the OKC citizens (read: voters) that are given tickets at the last minute and still go yet have zero idea there is a vote next month? What about the word-of-mouth that follows? You would think there would be at least one ad/message. In reality, who does know? The "official" Twitter/X account "Keep OKC Big League" has 231 followers; the Instagram account has 160 followers. Outside of Mayor Holt and this platform/organization, not much is being pumped out there.

What's that old saying about "assuming"?