The Thunder get the revenue from non Thunder events because the arena owners gave them this plum in the lease.

I would assume this is in the lease because the Thunder are the chief recruiter for groups who lease the suites for the whole year. If ATT leases a suite, the idea would be that they otherwise wouldn't but for the Thunder, so ATTs occupation of the suite for a Carrie Underwood concert is partially owed to the Thunder.

The Thunder get the revenue from non Thunder events because the arena owners gave them this plum in the lease.

Would all of those suites be leased at the premiums that were paid if there was no Thunder?

...

...

PhiAlpha is very, very much right, you know. Whether you want to believe him or not is on you, but it doesn't change that having an anchor tenant is why thr Paycom Center is able to sell those suites. And you need them for concerts and other events, as well (the suites, that is).

Seems to me that many here are bothered that the Thunder might make good money. Got no idea how the system works in the league, but want to begrudge them for any success. You want to make sure we have the most financially strapped team in the NBA? Serve notice that Okies hate giving a nickel to the NBA? Let them know you miss dollar beer, tickets and regular fights at the Blazers hockey?

Tell me what you know about major sports in the US and how the Thunder fit in.

This is going above my head. What are you saying here?

I’ll try to unpack it. I know that memes have become, in many cases, indecipherable for the uninitiated.

a) The people who control capital assets in the city’s various districts are, for the most part, fairly wealthy individuals. They aren’t Dobson or Kaiser wealthy, of course, but they are wealthy nonetheless.

b) These people understand that a multi-billion dollar arena district is not necessarily accretive for their respective non-CBD districts. In fact, a new arena will almost certainly be bad for their interests.

“Any student of economics knows that households have budget constraints that are binding, which means that families have only so much money to spend, particularly on entertainment. If the family chooses to spend the money at the ballpark, for example, then those funds cannot be spent on other activities. Thus, no new revenues are actually being generated.”

Source: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2001/should-cities-pay-for-sports-facilities

c) These people are actively protesting against the December 12 vote but cannot do so in their official capacities. That, too, would be bad for business. At the same time, they recognize that the “billionaires are bad!” argument tends to resonate with common people during a period of uncommonly high inflation.

I don’t necessarily subscribe to the meme, but I think this is a reasonable explanation of it.

Show me a state, city or country that spent too much on education.
Mentioning education here is a bogus argument. Education can't be improved by any kind of temporary city tax. OKC had a previous Maps for Kids for infrastructure improvements for schools and that did a good job of doing what was intended. Complain about the state if you are concerned about spending on education.

I’ll try to unpack it. I know that memes have become, in many cases, indecipherable for the uninitiated.

a) The people who control capital assets in the city’s various districts are, for the most part, fairly wealthy individuals. They aren’t Dobson or Kaiser wealthy, of course, but they are wealthy nonetheless.

b) These people understand that a multi-billion dollar arena district is not necessarily accretive for their respective non-CBD districts. In fact, a new arena will almost certainly be bad for their interests.

“Any student of economics knows that households have budget constraints that are binding, which means that families have only so much money to spend, particularly on entertainment. If the family chooses to spend the money at the ballpark, for example, then those funds cannot be spent on other activities. Thus, no new revenues are actually being generated.”

Source: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2001/should-cities-pay-for-sports-facilities

c) These people are actively protesting against the December 12 vote but cannot do so in their official capacities. That, too, would be bad for business. At the same time, they recognize that the “billionaires are bad!” argument tends to resonate with common people during a period of uncommonly high inflation.

I don’t necessarily subscribe to the meme, but I think this is a reasonable explanation of it.
Disposable income is an identifiable amount but people choose what to do with it. They can save or spend it. They can alter their behaviors. They may choose to spend it locally and not out of the area, for instance. So it can increase local spending without changing their total disposable amount. And, we can draw disposable income amounts from an expanded area. This isn’t necessarily taking a dollar from okc spending to give to Thunder. Things like tv money, out of town visitors, etc. We don’t live in a bubble and we try to bring in money from elsewhere all the time.

Mentioning education here is a bogus argument. Education can't be improved by any kind of temporary city tax. OKC had a previous Maps for Kids for infrastructure improvements for schools and that did a good job of doing what was intended. Complain about the state if you are concerned about spending on education.

It could be improved by a permanent one for sure. Letting the state dictate the quality of our schools is definitely a deciding factor in why our business community remains smaller than we need it to be.

Got this email yesterday

18446

It could be improved by a permanent one for sure. Letting the state dictate the quality of our schools is definitely a deciding factor in why our business community remains smaller than we need it to be.

But school districts HAVE to follow state rules and practices. No changes that would affect the "business community" can be made at rhe city level. Building new schools? Sure. But that won't improve educational rankings, IMO.

I wouldn't call Thunder Employees operating expenses from an arena management perspective.

the thunder pay OKC 28,000 dollars for operating expense's every game separate from their rent payment ..

the thunder pay OKC 28,000 dollars for operating expense's every game separate from their rent payment ..

It's all basically rent, it's about $100,000/game. It doesn't go terribly far for an event of that magnitude.

Given that we will be funding the $900B arena that will bring more concerts and enhance the Thunder experience, the city should pass this and then bring those numbers to a more favorable agreement for the city.

At the point that we pass this, we do have more bargaining power than we have before the vote. If we vote through an arena we are funding almost entirely on our end, the Thunder would look really bad backing out of a reasonable, but las favorable lease with the city.

It's all basically rent, it's about $100,000/game. It doesn't go terribly far for an event of that magnitude.

Given that we will be funding the $900B arena that will bring more concerts and enhance the Thunder experience, the city should pass this and then bring those numbers to a more favorable agreement for the city.

At the point that we pass this, we do have more bargaining power than we have before the vote. If we vote through an arena we are funding almost entirely on our end, the Thunder would look really bad backing out of a reasonable, but las favorable lease with the city.

what are the hard costs of game night for the facility? do you know that answer for this?

But school districts HAVE to follow state rules and practices. No changes that would affect the "business community" can be made at rhe city level. Building new schools? Sure. But that won't improve educational rankings, IMO.

It is my understanding that the state sets the minimum pay for teachers. If a district decided to tax themselves more and pay their teachers more and recruit a higher quality of teacher they could, right?

^^^^^^^^^
It doesn't work that way in Oklahoma. If a district receives additional funding via local property taxes, this amount is subtracted from the state funding they would have otherwise received, which is then instead distributed to other districts. The only place a municipal government can make a real difference via taxation is through capital projects (construction and improvement of facilities), either by bond issue or sales tax (the best example being MAPS for Kids in the early 2000s). In effect, the only way to give additional funding directly to teacher pay would be to forgo all state funding. In most districts state funding accounts for about 70% of their budget.

It is my understanding that the state sets the minimum pay for teachers. If a district decided to tax themselves more and pay their teachers more and recruit a higher quality of teacher they could, right?

i think that's correct? the state establishes a State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule and public school districts are allowed to meet or exceed it:

https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Salary%20Schedule%20Book%20FY23.pdf

It's all basically rent, it's about $100,000/game. It doesn't go terribly far for an event of that magnitude.

Given that we will be funding the $900B arena that will bring more concerts and enhance the Thunder experience, the city should pass this and then bring those numbers to a more favorable agreement for the city.

At the point that we pass this, we do have more bargaining power than we have before the vote. If we vote through an arena we are funding almost entirely on our end, the Thunder would look really bad backing out of a reasonable, but las favorable lease with the city.

This an innocent question....what would constitute a good deal?

Do you happen to know, or have access to, the arena lease agreements with the other NBA teams, so we can understand why our deal is bad?

^^^^^^^^^
It doesn't work that way in Oklahoma. If a district receives additional funding via local property taxes, this amount is subtracted from the state funding they would have otherwise received, which is then instead distributed to other districts. The only place a municipal government can make a real difference via taxation is through capital projects (construction and improvement of facilities), either by bond issue or sales tax (the best example being MAPS for Kids in the early 2000s). In effect, the only way to give additional funding directly to teacher pay would be to forgo all state funding. In most districts state funding accounts for about 70% of their budget.

The school doesn't have to pay the teachers for the teachers to be paid. "Hey, vote for a permanent 1% sales tax to fund a city wide tutoring program. The requirements to tutor are that you are employed as a teacher in an Oklahoma City based public school district. Pay is $20k per year and the program requirements are ________."

There's a million ways to be creative with ways to ensure the budgets of OKCPS, Putnam City, and Deer Creek are opened up to redirect pay toward teachers and/or student programs.

It's a city position to execute a city funded initiative.

what are the hard costs of game night for the facility? do you know that answer for this?

It's a good chunk of change.

Source for below: http://web.archive.org/web/20201112022745/https://www.broward.org/Arena/Documents/BBTCenterReport10-13-15.pdf

Based on what I can deduce, in 2015, BB&T arena (where the Florida Panthers played), had a study executed. For Approx. 86 events per year (Page 156) they anticipated ~$8.6M/year in expenses or $100,000 per event. I believe the study was for what it would look like if they did not have the Florida Panthers as an anchor tenant, so I would expect numbers to look different adding in a professional sports event. I would think the costs would be higher on average for a professional sports event given that the arena is at full capacity and crowd draw.

Again, it's worth noting that the City has confirmed they lost money on Paycom last (fiscal) year and this new arena would only be more costly to operate given that it will be bigger with more amenities, require more staffing and maintenance etc.

If OKC is dropping this amount of money, the terms should reflect that investment in the Thunder, who will continue to collect 100% of gate revenue and would get more revenue from more events since this new arena is being argued to all but guarantee we'll bring in more events (which means more suite money for Thunder).

It's a good chunk of change.

Source for below: http://web.archive.org/web/20201112022745/https://www.broward.org/Arena/Documents/BBTCenterReport10-13-15.pdf

Based on what I can deduce, in 2015, BB&T arena (where the Florida Panthers played), had a study executed. For Approx. 86 events per year (Page 156) they anticipated ~$8.6M/year in expenses or $100,000 per event. I believe the study was for what it would look like if they did not have the Florida Panthers as an anchor tenant, so I would expect numbers to look different adding in a professional sports event. I would think the costs would be higher on average for a professional sports event given that the arena is at full capacity and crowd draw.

Again, it's worth noting that the City has confirmed they lost money on Paycom last (fiscal) year and this new arena would only be more costly to operate given that it will be bigger with more amenities, require more staffing and maintenance etc.

If OKC is dropping this amount of money, the terms should reflect that investment in the Thunder, who will continue to collect 100% of gate revenue and would get more revenue from more events since this new arena is being argued to all but guarantee we'll bring in more events (which means more suite money for Thunder).
You ignoring my question about what is a “good deal”? And what are the other NBA teams paying?

Funny you mention Miami. I read on the Wikipedia page for the former American Airlines Arena, which hosts the Miami Heat, that the Heat don’t pay anything.

.

https://t3.ftcdn.net/jpg/03/82/84/50/360_F_382845069_f9Sg80yMYTzqdp6uPvcz33swBdi0Bowh.j pg


https://static.wixstatic.com/media/704b42_cd4f88371e2a47c5883304e4d41189e2~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_125,h_94,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/KeepOKCBigLeague_Logo_background.jpg


December 12, 2023 - Keep OKC Big League Campaign.



How Do I Vote?
Who can vote?
How can I register to vote?
Can I vote early?
What if I won’t be in Oklahoma City on December 12? Can I still vote?

Link: https://www.keepokcbigleague.com/how-do-i-vote


. . . One month from today.



.

Vote yes!!

I got my ballot in the mail yesterday. I'm voting YES.

You ignoring my question about what is a “good deal”? And what are the other NBA teams paying?

Funny you mention Miami. I read on the Wikipedia page for the former American Airlines Arena, which hosts the Miami Heat, that the Heat don’t pay anything.

I would like to see:

1. The thresholds for game time concessions increased by $1M at each level and set to jump $1M at years 10 and 20 of the lease.

2. I would also like to see the general concessions percentages to the Thunder drop 10% and the Courtside/club/restaurants/bars percentages increase 10% (I posit risk exposure is higher for general concessions than this set)

3. I would like to see the Thunder's luxury/premium rates drop 10% with a 12.5% stipend for Thunder game activity. (Luxury seats is one of the major reasons this is being done anyway, so give them more of the revenue they create for basketball events and the city for the additional events that will be created)

4. Naming rights should be $2.5M to OKC and increase $500k every 5 years. Lump sum payout of remaining rights revenue in the event of early termination.

5. Per game rent/fees to go from $80k to $105k and inflation cap bumped to 7%

6. Lease extension+renegotiation at 20 years with minimum extension of 10 years from end of current contract. Payout of $15M per year left on the lease for any early termination regardless of reason.

7. Non-relocate similar to current lease.

I would like to see:

1. The thresholds for game time concessions increased by $1M at each level and set to jump $1M at years 10 and 20 of the lease.

2. I would also like to see the general concessions percentages to the Thunder drop 10% and the Courtside/club/restaurants/bars percentages increase 10% (I posit risk exposure is higher for general concessions than this set)

3. I would like to see the Thunder's luxury/premium rates drop 10% with a 12.5% stipend for Thunder game activity. (Luxury seats is one of the major reasons this is being done anyway, so give them more of the revenue they create for basketball events and the city for the additional events that will be created)

4. Naming rights should be $2.5M to OKC and increase $500k every 5 years. Lump sum payout of remaining rights revenue in the event of early termination.

5. Per game rent/fees to go from $80k to $105k and inflation cap bumped to 7%

6. Lease extension+renegotiation at 20 years with minimum extension of 10 years from end of current contract. Payout of $15M per year left on the lease for any early termination regardless of reason.

7. Non-relocate similar to current lease.

You have a number. Good.

You have any idea if these items are being discussed currently? You have any reason to think they would not be discussed?

You have a number. Good.

You have any idea if these items are being discussed currently? You have any reason to think they would not be discussed?

Based on how this deal has gone so far, I expect the numbers to go the wrong way or stay substantially the same and I think there's zero chance PBC signs a lease with early termination fees nor a lease without conditional opt out at around the 10 and 15 year marks.

I would hope the city starts with numbers slightly more aggressive than the above and make sure that if the Thunder's counteroffer is substantially far off from ours that it leak to the media that the Thunder are not negotiating in good faith and that a lease may not happen even though we voted to build them a new arena. Since absolutely nothing has come out on what has been discussed, it's not like the Thunder could call the city out. Post "Yes" vote will be the last and only time the city will have any negotiating power with the Thunder, but I don't expect we'll take the opportunity. We seem just to be grateful they're considering staying and don't believe we have much to offer.

OKC also needs to figure out the lease with ASM. Per the review submitted to city council, the city generated $2.2M in sales tax which pencils out to $55M in annual in-arena revenue, so we're getting eaten alive by ASM. Let's say the Thunder bring in ~$25M of that amount, $30M gross revenue should not end in us losing $5M+

Based on how this deal has gone so far, I expect the numbers to go the wrong way or stay substantially the same and I think there's zero chance PBC signs a lease with early termination fees nor a lease without conditional opt out at around the 10 and 15 year marks.

I would hope the city starts with numbers slightly more aggressive than the above and make sure that if the Thunder's counteroffer is substantially far off from ours that it leak to the media that the Thunder are not negotiating in good faith and that a lease may not happen even though we voted to build them a new arena. Since absolutely nothing has come out on what has been discussed, it's not like the Thunder could call the city out. Post "Yes" vote will be the last and only time the city will have any negotiating power with the Thunder, but I don't expect we'll take the opportunity. We seem just to be grateful they're considering staying and don't believe we have much to offer.

Well you already have it set in your mind. No sense for city council to try now. You've got it handled.

And it is because we don't have much to offer! That is the point. We have no leverage. NO other team in OKC that we could hang out hat on. OU is in Norman, OSU, Stillwater. No team has ever mentioned OKC as ever a remote, possible relocation destination. People on here don't want to hear it, but what does OKC have to offer on a national, grand scale to compensate for losing the Thunder? Nothing, zip, nada.

Well you already have it set in your mind. No sense for city council to try now. You've got it handled.

And it is because we don't have much to offer! That is the point. We have no leverage. NO other team in OKC that we could hang out hat on. OU is in Norman, OSU, Stillwater. No team has ever mentioned OKC as ever a remote, possible relocation destination. People on here don't want to hear it, but what does OKC have to offer on a national, grand scale to compensate for losing the Thunder? Nothing, zip, nada.

Man, I don't know what to tell you other than that you should probably get out of OKC. If the Thunder are all that this city has to offer you, you're missing out on most of what life has to offer you. Have you ever lived outside of Oklahoma?

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain George Shinn made a pretty serious attempt to keep the Hornets here for good after the successful temp home we gave them. And IDK how serious it ever got but I feel like I remember the Pittsburg Penguins having at least very early discussions of a relocation here when they were seeking a new arena in Pittsburg.

OKC has actually turned into a very fun and entertain place to live and play and enjoy life (and compared to other cities its size extremely affordable) . I live in Bethany so unfortunately cannot vote 12/12 although I'd certainly be voting yes but comparing or grouping or tying OKC's quality of life to the Thunder isn't very serious thinking. I'd say probably 98% of the fun I have in the city (metro) has absolutely nothing to do with the Thunder. and again I LOVE the Thunder I'm very proud to say I am from OKC and I'm a Thunder fan, I'd be crushed if they left but them leaving certainly wouldn't affect much in my life in the long run.



Well you already have it set in your mind. No sense for city council to try now. You've got it handled.

And it is because we don't have much to offer! That is the point. We have no leverage. NO other team in OKC that we could hang out hat on. OU is in Norman, OSU, Stillwater. No team has ever mentioned OKC as ever a remote, possible relocation destination. People on here don't want to hear it, but what does OKC have to offer on a national, grand scale to compensate for losing the Thunder? Nothing, zip, nada.

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain George Shinn made a pretty serious attempt to keep the Hornets here for good after the successful temp home we gave them. And IDK how serious it ever got but I feel like I remember the Pittsburg Penguins having at least very early discussions of a relocation here when they were seeking a new arena in Pittsburg.

OKC has actually turned into a very fun and entertain place to live and play and enjoy life (and compared to other cities its size extremely affordable) . I live in Bethany so unfortunately cannot vote 12/12 although I'd certainly be voting yes but comparing or grouping or tying OKC's quality of life to the Thunder isn't very serious thinking. I'd say probably 98% of the fun I have in the city (metro) has absolutely nothing to do with the Thunder. and again I LOVE the Thunder I'm very proud to say I am from OKC and I'm a Thunder fan, I'd be crushed if they left but them leaving certainly wouldn't affect much in my life in the long run.

I recall the NBA was pretty direct with Mr. Shinn that they were not going to let him stay in OKC. The reason I recall reading was that he had screwed up 2 markets already (Charlotte and New Orleans. He had issues in NO before the hurricane) and they didn't want him to do it again. He only lasted about 5 more years in NO, IIRC.

Man, I don't know what to tell you other than that you should probably get out of OKC. If the Thunder are all that this city has to offer you, you're missing out on most of what life has to offer you. Have you ever lived outside of Oklahoma?

I don't even go to Thunder games. Maybe 5 in my life.

But I know plenty of people from other cities (Portland, Hartford, CT, Birmingham, AL, etc.) and the first thing they mentioned when I said I was from OKC was "How about the Thunder?" So I know damn well how big the Thunder help OKC. No one ask about the Convention Center, or crappy roads, or anything you might think. So from a national perspective, OKC has very little, aside from the Thunder. I am not talking about locally. Of course we know more about OKC than they do. But perception is reality. The perception about OKC and Oklahoma, nationally, is not good. So having a positive like the Thunder is huge.

Yes, absolutely correct and agree the NBA wasn't going to let that happen but he did want to keep them here, which contradicts what the poster was saying.


QUOTE=Dob Hooligan;1249859]I recall the NBA was pretty direct with Mr. Shinn that they were not going to let him stay in OKC. The reason I recall reading was that he had screwed up 2 markets already (Charlotte and New Orleans. He had issues in NO before the hurricane) and they didn't want him to do it again. He only lasted about 5 more years in NO, IIRC.[/QUOTE]

I’m curious on if this is really socialism for billionaires though.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/socialism-for-billionaires-oklahoma-progress-now-responds-to-letter-in-support-of-thunder-arena-deal

Based on how this deal has gone so far, I expect the numbers to go the wrong way or stay substantially the same and I think there's zero chance PBC signs a lease with early termination fees nor a lease without conditional opt out at around the 10 and 15 year marks.

I would hope the city starts with numbers slightly more aggressive than the above and make sure that if the Thunder's counteroffer is substantially far off from ours that it leak to the media that the Thunder are not negotiating in good faith and that a lease may not happen even though we voted to build them a new arena. Since absolutely nothing has come out on what has been discussed, it's not like the Thunder could call the city out. Post "Yes" vote will be the last and only time the city will have any negotiating power with the Thunder, but I don't expect we'll take the opportunity. We seem just to be grateful they're considering staying and don't believe we have much to offer.

The question I have is how do the proposed numbers you are putting out there compare to the overall US market? Just because you have an idea doesn't mean it is a realistic proposal (and I'm not suggesting it is or is not). I have no idea how the other team's deals are structured, and I doubt anyone else does, either. The NBA is a combination of single owners and multiple owners, plus probably 30 different levels of secrecy regarding each arena tenant agreement, arena management company, and arena ownership. I even read this morning that the Heat pay zero in Miami. No idea if that is true, but....

I’m curious on if this is really socialism for billionaires though.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/socialism-for-billionaires-oklahoma-progress-now-responds-to-letter-in-support-of-thunder-arena-deal

Ms. Rawdah, executive director of Oklahoma Progress Now states this is the worst negotiated arena deal in NBA history, with zero verification or documentation listed in the article. Wish she would provide numbers.

I don't even go to Thunder games. Maybe 5 in my life.

But I know plenty of people from other cities (Portland, Hartford, CT, Birmingham, AL, etc.) and the first thing they mentioned when I said I was from OKC was "How about the Thunder?" So I know damn well how big the Thunder help OKC. No one ask about the Convention Center, or crappy roads, or anything you might think. So from a national perspective, OKC has very little, aside from the Thunder. I am not talking about locally. Of course we know more about OKC than they do. But perception is reality. The perception about OKC and Oklahoma, nationally, is not good. So having a positive like the Thunder is huge.

So, no, you haven't lived outside of Oklahoma?

So, no, you haven't lived outside of Oklahoma?

No. I live in OKC, and have literally all my life. So I'm not sure what that has ro do with anything.

No. I live in OKC, and have literally all my life. So I'm not sure what that has ro do with anything.

I mean, it at least explains the concern for national perception. I get it...I've lived here most of my life as well. It's easy to conflate the rise of the city with the coming of the Thunder and be concerned for that legacy.

What I can tell you, having traveled and lived in other countries and spent time in other US Cities, is that more people than ever know about OKC because of the Thunder and that mostly translates to more people than ever not caring about OKC. Outside of the biggest basketball fans, nobody wants to come visit OKC because of the Thunder, no one wants to move here because of the Thunder. People do not care about this place any more than people in Oklahoma City care about Indianapolis or Leipzig. Perception is absolutely NOT reality, because people thinking whatever stereotype about my home city doesn't actually translate to me living that stereotype.

The biggest threats to OKC are A. The state of Oklahoma and B. The city of Oklahoma City. Nothing else comes close (I guess maybe if the Air Force closed Tinker).

Having not lived outside of Oklahoma is preventing many from understanding how dynamic cities of this size are and how to appropriately assess the impact of an amenity like the Thunder. Yes, we need to work to keep them, but it needs to be a measured approach and we need to understand what the cost/benefit really is.

Unfortunately, city leaders have largely determined that its citizens don't need that information presented to them.

The question I have is how do the proposed numbers you are putting out there compare to the overall US market? Just because you have an idea doesn't mean it is a realistic proposal (and I'm not suggesting it is or is not). I have no idea how the other team's deals are structured, and I doubt anyone else does, either. The NBA is a combination of single owners and multiple owners, plus probably 30 different levels of secrecy regarding each arena tenant agreement, arena management company, and arena ownership. I even read this morning that the Heat pay zero in Miami. No idea if that is true, but....

That Miami stuff looks to be true and was a pretty big failure on the mayor/city leadership at that time. At the same time, that arena was substantially cheaper than what we're being asked to build.

To turn the numbers questions on its head: how much would you be willing for the city to lose annually to keep the Thunder in OKC?

That Miami stuff looks to be true and was a pretty big failure on the mayor/city leadership at that time. At the same time, that arena was substantially cheaper than what we're being asked to build.

To turn the numbers questions on its head: how much would you be willing for the city to lose annually to keep the Thunder in OKC?

I think the Thunder brings net value to OKC.

Lemme ask you this

How much you willing to lose to keep Scissortail Park?

The OKC Zoo?

The Convention Center?

The OKC Symphony/ballet/Broadway style shows?

Art museums?

I think Miami's former American Airlines Arena and our former Ford Center were both built around 1997-ish. Miami's arena was around $200 million and Ford Center was under $100 million. Different times in the arena building biz.

I mean, it at least explains the concern for national perception. I get it...I've lived here most of my life as well. It's easy to conflate the rise of the city with the coming of the Thunder and be concerned for that legacy.

What I can tell you, having traveled and lived in other countries and spent time in other US Cities, is that more people than ever know about OKC because of the Thunder and that mostly translates to more people than ever not caring about OKC. Outside of the biggest basketball fans, nobody wants to come visit OKC because of the Thunder, no one wants to move here because of the Thunder. People do not care about this place any more than people in Oklahoma City care about Indianapolis or Leipzig. Perception is absolutely NOT reality, because people thinking whatever stereotype about my home city doesn't actually translate to me living that stereotype.

The biggest threats to OKC are A. The state of Oklahoma and B. The city of Oklahoma City. Nothing else comes close (I guess maybe if the Air Force closed Tinker).

Having not lived outside of Oklahoma is preventing many from understanding how dynamic cities of this size are and how to appropriately assess the impact of an amenity like the Thunder. Yes, we need to work to keep them, but it needs to be a measured approach and we need to understand what the cost/benefit really is.

Unfortunately, city leaders have largely determined that its citizens don't need that information presented to them.

I didn't realize only OKC was corrupt and tried to pull the wool over its citizens' eyes. I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Glad to know we are the only corrupt city.

I get what you are saying, but OKC is unique in that, by all rights, they shouldn't have a team. No sports league would ever pick us for expansion, ever. So we have no leverage. I can't name one sport that has even thought about spitting in OKC's direction for an expansion team. that is my whole thing. OKC stole a team from Seattle. So if we lose them for basically the same reason we got them, then that is a bad look for OKC. And we won't get any pro team for a long, long, long, long, long time.

I think the Thunder brings net value to OKC.

Lemme ask you this

How much you willing to lose to keep Scissortail Park?

The OKC Zoo?

The Convention Center?

The OKC Symphony/ballet/Broadway style shows?

Art museums?

I'll answer those questions as soon as you answer mine :D

I didn't realize only OKC was corrupt and tried to pull the wool over its citizens' eyes. I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Glad to know we are the only corrupt city.

I get what you are saying, but OC is unique in that, by all rights, they shouldn't have a team. No sports league would ever pick us for expansion, ever. So we have no leverage. I can't name one sport that has even thought about spitting in OKC's direction for an expansion team. that is my whole thing. OKC stole a team from Seattle. So if we lose them for basically the same reason we got them, then that is a bad look for OKC. And we won't get any pro team for a long, long, long, long, long time.

I didn't say we were the only corrupt city, nor did I even say we are corrupt. That's an overly emotional take on my post.

Obviously if it came to losing the team getting another professional franchise within 10 years would be difficult, but much beyond that and the landscape will likely look a lot different from the perspective of what we have to offer, how many other cities balk at building arenas, and what expansion has looked like in the various leagues.

I'll answer those questions as soon as you answer mine :D

Oh yes! Only fair.

I would give them whatever the Mayor and city staff negotiate. I trust our ownership to be fair minded, solid civic leaders who have not shown themselves to be city-screwing crooks...at an excessive level. I'm happy with our city and the direction leadership has embarked on over the last 30 years. I also don't think we will ever know the true cost of arenas and tenant deals.

I think of Seattle and the former Key Arena. We know it underwent a huge rebuild and is now known as Climate Pledge Arena. We hear it was privately financed and the cost is described as $1.1 billion plus. I recall when I was pretty regularly on the Sonics Rising website that Seattle people said there was a huge cost to properly bring parking, passenger rail access, water and sewer at the modern level needed to make the arena work properly. Now, I don't know who paid that, if it were included in the $1billion plus amount, or what is included in the way of tax and other financial incentives, etc... I do know that the group in charge of the arena deal and operations is Oak View Group, and former Eagles manager Irving Azoff is tops in OVG. The man Don Henley called "our Satan" at the Eagles Rock & Roll HOF induction speech.


So, who really knows what costs what? You either trust the parties involved or you don't. But don't expect the 100% God's honest truth.

Oh yes! Only fair.

I would give them whatever the Mayor and city staff negotiate. I trust our ownership to be fair minded, solid civic leaders who have not shown themselves to be city-screwing crooks...at an excessive level. I'm happy with our city and the direction leadership has embarked on over the last 30 years. I also don't think we will ever know the true cost of arenas and tenant deals.

I think of Seattle and the former Key Arena. We know it underwent a huge rebuild and is now known as Climate Pledge Arena. We hear it was privately financed and the cost is described as $1.1 billion plus. I recall when I was pretty regularly on the Sonics Rising website that Seattle people said there was a huge cost to properly bring parking, passenger rail access, water and sewer at the modern level needed to make the arena work properly. Now, I don't know who paid that, if it were included in the $1billion plus amount, or what is included in the way of tax and other financial incentives, etc... I do know that the group in charge of the arena deal and operations is Oak View Group, and former Eagles manager Irving Azoff is tops in OVG. The man Don Henley called "our Satan" at the Eagles Rock & Roll HOF induction speech.


So, who really knows what costs what? You either trust the parties involved or you don't. But don't expect the 100% God's honest truth.

Honest question, would you be good with building a $1B transit system and the city not report ridership numbers?

From my end, it's not that there's like this huge distrust of the people at play here. I don't think the Thunder ownership group is trying to absolutely gouge the city nor do I think the city is groveling to the ownership group. What I do feel like is happening is a disregard for the opportunity costs and a lack of concern for unnecessary line-item costs because I think for multiple reasons, it is wanted as fast as it can be done. While I understand the excitement, I don't personally support this approach to using public funds. I think too many people are caught up in "the deal" in terms of whether it's good or bad, take it or leave it, etc. when we should be thinking about why a new discussion of this deal, especially in light of the last 15 months of inflation and Federal Reserve response, is a worthy exercise. The world changed since these discussions started between the groups and I think if they started hammering out the deal today, it would look different.

Honest question, would you be good with building a $1B transit system and the city not report ridership numbers?

From my end, it's not that there's like this huge distrust of the people at play here. I don't think the Thunder ownership group is trying to absolutely gouge the city nor do I think the city is groveling to the ownership group. What I do feel like is happening is a disregard for the opportunity costs and a lack of concern for unnecessary line-item costs because I think for multiple reasons, it is wanted as fast as it can be done. While I understand the excitement, I don't personally support this approach to using public funds. I think too many people are caught up in "the deal" in terms of whether it's good or bad, take it or leave it, etc. when we should be thinking about why a new discussion of this deal, especially in light of the last 15 months of inflation and Federal Reserve response, is a worthy exercise. The world changed since these discussions started between the groups and I think if they started hammering out the deal today, it would look different.

Didn't we already do that? Not $1b, but a lot of money.

I didn't realize only OKC was corrupt and tried to pull the wool over its citizens' eyes. I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Glad to know we are the only corrupt city.

I get what you are saying, but OKC is unique in that, by all rights, they shouldn't have a team. No sports league would ever pick us for expansion, ever. So we have no leverage. I can't name one sport that has even thought about spitting in OKC's direction for an expansion team. that is my whole thing. OKC stole a team from Seattle. So if we lose them for basically the same reason we got them, then that is a bad look for OKC. And we won't get any pro team for a long, long, long, long, long time.

Man you are so defensive. As a matter of fact the NHL did look at OKC as a possoble expansion market

Well you already have it set in your mind. No sense for city council to try now. You've got it handled.

And it is because we don't have much to offer! That is the point. We have no leverage. NO other team in OKC that we could hang out hat on. OU is in Norman, OSU, Stillwater. No team has ever mentioned OKC as ever a remote, possible relocation destination. People on here don't want to hear it, but what does OKC have to offer on a national, grand scale to compensate for losing the Thunder? Nothing, zip, nada.

If this is actually true, then the city isn’t “big league” even if the team remains in place.

If this is actually true, then the city isn’t “big league” even if the team remains in place.

No. With the Thunder, we gave something to offer on a national scale. People all over the country know the Thunder. We lose them, we truly do have nothing on that scale. Nice try, though ��

Man guys there's a lot of back and forth here and some if it is taking others posts out of context or sure seems that way. I was also generally on the fence about the new arena at its proposed cost. At $600mil it's a no brainer. At a billion dollars I had some trepidation. I realize the official price tag isn't $1 billion but there will likely be cost overruns so just plan on it being a $1 billion dollar arena.
As I dug into the details, it appears the cost to OKC tax payers will be closer to $700 million when the dust settles that's due to the small contribution from the team owners and that out of town folks spend a lot of money in OKC. While that is no small sum for a city of our size I believe it adds a tremendous amount of tangible and intangible value to the city. Having the team here for another 25 years is a huge win for OKC. While you can't put hard numbers on this, I do believe it makes us more competitive when attracting corporate jobs, headquarters and the like. We are very unlikely to ever get a pro football team due to the impact on two local schools (OU and OSU) and a city of our size and growth trajectory need a major sports and entertainment venue to be taken seriously in the corporate world. The other big issue we need to tackle is education and that's more of a state problem that we can discuss in another thread.

OKC used to miss relocation of companies due in part to terrible infrastructure, roads, parks, etc...no entertainment for employees, safety and education. We've largely tackled most of those making us much more competitive and the city currently carries tremendous momentum. Not keeping the Thunder won't doom the city, but will take us out of the national spotlight and in the years that immediately follow will make it much more difficult to attract good jobs and corporate relo's to the metro area.

I’m curious on if this is really socialism for billionaires though.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/socialism-for-billionaires-oklahoma-progress-now-responds-to-letter-in-support-of-thunder-arena-deal

LOL these OPN people are full of crap.

Man you are so defensive. As a matter of fact the NHL did look at OKC as a possoble expansion market

For about a minute.

Man you are so defensive. As a matter of fact the NHL did look at OKC as a possoble expansion market

Maybe so, and I apologize for seemingly that way.

And sure, they did, until we lost out for reasons thst exist today. That's the problem, and why us losing a team will mean us likely never getting a shot at another.

I’m curious on if this is really socialism for billionaires though.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/socialism-for-billionaires-oklahoma-progress-now-responds-to-letter-in-support-of-thunder-arena-deal

You do realize socialism would be the city taking over the operation of the Thunder and controlling it as an awful lot of the posters here want, right? Doubt any billionaires here want socialism.

OKC used to miss relocation of companies due in part to terrible infrastructure, roads, parks, etc...no entertainment for employees, safety and education. We've largely tackled most of those making us much more competitive and the city currently carries tremendous momentum. Not keeping the Thunder won't doom the city, but will take us out of the national spotlight and in the years that immediately follow will make it much more difficult to attract good jobs and corporate relo's to the metro area.

If you think OKCs infrastructure is any worse than most anywhere else, you must not travel much.

If you think OKCs infrastructure is any worse than most anywhere else, you must not travel much.

He said "used to"

True. My bad.