I

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).

I don't believe the city ever "confirmed" this ..

the city confirmed what the budget ..

but again the city puts revenue in different pots .. and there is not arena only budget page showing all revenue and all expenses ... which is absurd

I don't believe the city ever "confirmed" this ..

the city confirmed what the budget ..

but again the city puts revenue in different pots .. and there is not arena only budget page showing all revenue and all expenses ... which is absurd

What do you have to back up these claims when the report presented to the council (post 1979 in this thread) clearly shows a loss?

Cities are bad business operators. OKC (and other cities) learned that during the 1970s-80s after they all got on an arena arms race, and then maintenance, labor and the touring/resident tenant entities got smarter about the money involved, and the arenas were regarded as a financial black hole. ASM and other companies specialized in arena operation and then consolidated, leaving only a few.

The cold, hard truth is cities lose money on arenas. Just like they do on Zoos, symphony halls, public parks, street cars/ public transportation, and all kinds of Quality of Life items.

I trust city management is fully aware of the costs involved with arena operation, and also fully aware of how we compare to peer cities. If we were getting screwed, I'm sure there is a "Bob Anthony type" in the council or management who would make sure the word got out.

What do you have to back up these claims when the report presented to the council (post 1979 in this thread) clearly shows a loss?

do you see thunder rent payment in that document

do you see thunder parking payment in that document

do you see thunder game expense payment in that document

do you don't

do you see thunder rent payment in that document

do you see thunder parking payment in that document

do you see thunder game expense payment in that document

do you don't

So what are those numbers then? It's fascinating to look at your post history in this thread and compare the claims you make to the actual evidence you post (which is near 0).

So what are those numbers then? It's fascinating to look at your post history in this thread and compare the claims you make to the actual evidence you post (which is near 0).

would be great if the city had all of them and an arena full page accounting on 1 sheet and in one place ..

do you see thunder rent payment in that document

do you see thunder parking payment in that document

do you see thunder game expense payment in that document

do you don't

Pretty sure those go to ASM, so we wouldn't see it on a city document.

I'm not of the opinion that the City needs to make money on this project, I agree with Dob that city/government budgets shouldn't operate similarly to the private sector. But I do need to know, before I vote "Yes" to lock away $1.2B+ what the real cost is and even if I vote "No" and "Yes" wins out, I will still be pretty gung ho about more transparency surrounding the financial performance of this ridiculously large investment, just like I expect for the city to account for the performance of the Convention Center and Transit.

On another note, parks are a really bad comparison for this conversation. They're nearly never revenue generating but they're undeniably essential in a city scape and necessary for the Humanity of citizens. Zoos, Theaters, Transit, Libraries, etc are comparable and should be compared to make sure we're getting good ROI not necessarily in comparison to other cities, alone, but also in the competiton for dollars within the city budget. One major difference is that a lot of those types of amenities come with substantiallymore transparent budgets than we're.getting on this arena and they ask for quite a bit less money.

Vote yes!����

Vote yes!����

:yeahthat:

Vote yes

Interesting story from KOCO: https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-paycom-center-drake-concert/45825982


Hoping for good news and a yes vote next month. The city will regret if the arena vote fails and the Thunder leave town.

Interesting story from KOCO: https://www.koco.com/article/heres-how-to-get-paid-for-watching-holiday-movies/45825074

Hoping for good news and a yes vote next month. The city will regret if the arena vote fails and the Thunder leave town.

Now I know how to get paid to watch holiday movies!

Now I know how to get paid to watch holiday movies!

Sorry, wrong link.

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-paycom-center-drake-concert/45825982

Does nothing but show OKC needs a new arena. 3 of the 24 largest arena-based tours came through.okc wouldn't get less than Tulsa, just from a sheer population-standpoint. So it makes the point even stronger that OKC needs a new arena.

Getting a couple good shows is lipstick on a pig. Cool to grt the shows here, but it is still a pig.

Pretty sure those go to ASM, so we wouldn't see it on a city document.

I'm not of the opinion that the City needs to make money on this project, I agree with Dob that city/government budgets shouldn't operate similarly to the private sector. But I do need to know, before I vote "Yes" to lock away $1.2B+ what the real cost is and even if I vote "No" and "Yes" wins out, I will still be pretty gung ho about more transparency surrounding the financial performance of this ridiculously large investment, just like I expect for the city to account for the performance of the Convention Center and Transit.

On another note, parks are a really bad comparison for this conversation. They're nearly never revenue generating but they're undeniably essential in a city scape and necessary for the Humanity of citizens. Zoos, Theaters, Transit, Libraries, etc are comparable and should be compared to make sure we're getting good ROI not necessarily in comparison to other cities, alone, but also in the competiton for dollars within the city budget. One major difference is that a lot of those types of amenities come with substantiallymore transparent budgets than we're.getting on this arena and they ask for quite a bit less money.

I want people like Teo in City Administration.

Also keep in mind that the Drake show is two days after the Thunder play and then two more days after the Drake show, Disturbed plays, so there is plenty of time in between the two. We couldn't do Drake, Disturbed, Tool and Jason Isbell back to back to back to back... To Urbanized point, it's easy for the Thunder to pack up, but to move whole shows in and out is difficult.

Also keep in mind that the Drake show is two days after the Thunder play and then two more days after the Drake show, Disturbed plays, so there is plenty of time in between the two. We couldn't do Drake, Disturbed, Tool and Jason Isbell back to back to back to back... To Urbanized point, it's easy for the Thunder to pack up, but to move whole shows in and out is difficult.

Do we need to do that at this current juncture? I think we're 20 years away from having the population and economy to regularly support a Thursday>Friday>Saturday lineups and even being able to reliably grab Fridays and Saturdays for big acts. And that somewhat assumes we outpace a lot of competing cities. Not to say we can't ever get big acts on the weekend, but if they're trying to B2B the show with Dallas, you can believe the Friday show is happening in Dallas.

Do we need to do that at this current juncture? I think we're 20 years away from having the population and economy to regularly support a Thursday>Friday>Saturday lineups and even being able to reliably grab Fridays and Saturdays for big acts. And that somewhat assumes we outpace a lot of competing cities. Not to say we can't ever get big acts on the weekend, but if they're trying to B2B the show with Dallas, you can believe the Friday show is happening in Dallas.

That's not for me to say, but the issue is we don't have the capacity to do it if we wanted to. There are a lot of complaints that the BOK in Tulsa gets more shows because it is a better venue and I would guess it would be like Dallas/Houston/Austin (yes, I know those cities are bigger) in that OKC might get the first leg of a tour and Tulsa the second leg or vice versa.

Do we need to do that at this current juncture? I think we're 20 years away from having the population and economy to regularly support a Thursday>Friday>Saturday lineups and even being able to reliably grab Fridays and Saturdays for big acts. And that somewhat assumes we outpace a lot of competing cities. Not to say we can't ever get big acts on the weekend, but if they're trying to B2B the show with Dallas, you can believe the Friday show is happening in Dallas.

Tulsa had double the # of top 24 arena tours last year. That should say all you need to know.

They have less population, and are no more wealthy than here. They just have an arena capable of handling all modern shows. We get some, but usually have a less elaborate staging area or stage in general. And are very, very, VERY rarely, if ever, on back to back days.

Good interview w Rep. Forrest Bennet. Talks about the arena at the beginning. Brings up a lot of good points - https://open.spotify.com/episode/0yce1JP3eNTIycOokJcamq?si=fjE8ZHOITLirDg7gUt_jtw

Good interview w Rep. Forrest Bennet. Talks about the arena at the beginning. Brings up a lot of good points - https://open.spotify.com/episode/0yce1JP3eNTIycOokJcamq?si=fjE8ZHOITLirDg7gUt_jtw

He definitely makes a lot of good points. If we’re going to provide a $1.5 Billion arena, the owners should commit to a full rebrand of all marks and logos, a payroll that consistently lands in 2nd apron territory, and an option for locals to watch for free. The bally experience has been an unmitigated disaster.

Tulsa had double the # of top 24 arena tours last year. That should say all you need to know.

They have less population, and are no more wealthy than here. They just have an arena capable of handling all modern shows. We get some, but usually have a less elaborate staging area or stage in general. And are very, very, VERY rarely, if ever, on back to back days.

It's worth remembering we have an anchor tenant whose occupation of certain days may make it less likely that a traveling act wants to deal with scheduling in a Tier III market. I'd like to know how Memphis & Milwaukee fare.

Sorry, wrong link.

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-paycom-center-drake-concert/45825982

LOL what a dumb argument against the new arena.

I want people like Teo in City Administration.

I’d be down with that as long as the arena is approved first ;)

Good interview w Rep. Forrest Bennet. Talks about the arena at the beginning. Brings up a lot of good points - https://open.spotify.com/episode/0yce1JP3eNTIycOokJcamq?si=fjE8ZHOITLirDg7gUt_jtw

Great share! Thank you for linking that. Forrest is very well-spoken and I hope he continues to build a career in public service.

That quote about his left-wing friend who says "Look, the vote on the 12th is whether or not you want a team. We can discuss all the other things..." re whether ownership contributed enough, etc. but this is the whole thing boiled down to simple, maybe uncomfortable, truth.

He definitely makes a lot of good points. If we’re going to provide a $1.5 Billion arena, the owners should commit to a full rebrand of all marks and logos, a payroll that consistently lands in 2nd apron territory, and an option for locals to watch for free. The bally experience has been an unmitigated disaster.

lol on making the owners rebrand marks and logos ..

lol on making the owners rebrand marks and logos ..

I agree with all the points made but understand that’s not a realistic ask from the ownership group. In my opinion it’s the most disappointing logo/branding I have ever seen.

The people funding the arena are the ones getting priced out with the new footprint.

Ownership will have to make a decision on the 2nd apron within 3-5 years.

I think the uniforms, brands and logos are fine. Have no idea why anyone doesn't like them.

The people funding the arena are not getting priced out. The NBA and its teams do not make any money if people do not go to their games, watch their games, buy their merchandise or food & beverage at their games.

I think the uniforms, brands and logos are fine. Have no idea why anyone doesn't like them.

The people funding the arena are not getting priced out. The NBA and its teams do not make any money if people do not go to their games, watch their games, buy their merchandise or food & beverage at their games.

It’s widely regarded as one of the worst logos — not just in American sports but globally.

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

Just seems super weird that the organization is adamant about playing its games in a BLC arena asap, but would be comfortable doing so with its non-BLC marks and logos.

I think the uniforms, brands and logos are fine. Have no idea why anyone doesn't like them.

The people funding the arena are not getting priced out. The NBA and its teams do not make any money if people do not go to their games, watch their games, buy their merchandise or food & beverage at their games.

Ticketing is not a primary revenue source.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/how-nba-makes-money.asp

If ticketing isn’t a primary revenue resource then they’ll be fine waiting a decade or 2 for a new arena.

Ticketing is not a primary revenue source.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/071415/how-nba-makes-money.asp

21.57 percent of NBA revenue is from ticket sales .. down from almost 30% in 2010/2011

so yeah that is a primary source of revenue

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193410/percentage-of-ticketing-revenue-in-the-nba-since-2006/

I think the uniforms, brands and logos are fine. Have no idea why anyone doesn't like them.

The people funding the arena are not getting priced out. The NBA and its teams do not make any money if people do not go to their games, watch their games, buy their merchandise or food & beverage at their games.

You would think we need to move on past this point. Some don't like the logo, some don't like the name, some don't like the Patch. If I'm Love's Travel Stops & Country Store entering into an agreement--$40 million for four years, I'd want a patch someone can recognized because it's a part of my marketing brand in 610 locations in 42 states.

Sure you can tweak the logo and the brand. We're not talking about Thunder as in Lightning, but Thunder as in a thundering herd of Bisons.

Remember, the relocation IIRC occurred July 2008 just a few months before the season started. IDK when the logo or team nickmane had to be filed and released; however you wonder if they could have taken more time. Many NBA fans hear Thunder, they don't associate the team with a herd.

The team name, logo and patch have grown on me; it wouldn't have concerned me if they used the name Supersonics, because I grew up in the 60s when we recall all the 'sonic boom' testing that rocked the skies and buildings throughout OKC.


In 1964, the US government conducted an experiment in which it bombarded Oklahoma City with eight sonic booms a day, every day, for six months, in order to test community reaction.--Duke University Press.

.

It’s widely regarded as one of the worst logos — not just in American sports but globally.

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

Just seems super weird that the organization is adamant about playing its games in a BLC arena asap, but would be comfortable doing so with its non-BLC marks and logos.

One thing I have noticed after seeing many uniform and logo articles is that the internet doesn't like change, or new. The blog linked to appears to be over 10 years old (even had KD without the bald spot). Now that we are something like, over 15 years, I would think that if they change the brand and uniforms then people will crush them for getting rid of the "classic" Thunder look.

[QUOTE=BoulderSooner;1250120]21.57 percent of NBA revenue is from ticket sales .. down from almost 30% in 2010/2011

so yeah that is a primary source of revenue

Is the money from tickets in decline as you seem to indicate.
How does that compare to TV $, merch sales and sponserships like patches and naming rights? 21% could very well be secondary in comparission especially if that is now

If ticketing isn’t a primary revenue resource then they’ll be fine waiting a decade or 2 for a new arena.

Maybe the dumbest thing I have ever read....

If they keep waiting, they are missing out on suite revenue, other premium seats. Maybe not the lion's share of the revenue, but a material amount. And in 2 decades, the team will be in Louisville or KCMO, so it won't matter.

[QUOTE=BoulderSooner;1250120]21.57 percent of NBA revenue is from ticket sales .. down from almost 30% in 2010/2011

so yeah that is a primary source of revenue

Is the money from tickets in decline as you seem to indicate.
How does that compare to TV $, merch sales and sponserships like patches and naming rights? 21% could very well be secondary in comparission especially if that is now

rough guess at current vs future revenue:



Current
Revenue


National TV Deal
80 M


Local TV
15 M


Love's Patch
10 M


Nike
35 M


Paycom Ticket Sales
55 M


Tencent Deal
50 M


Paycom Rev. Share
25 M






Total Revenue
270 M





Future
Revenue


National TV Deal
200 M


Local TV
20 M


Love's Patch
15 M


Nike
50 M


Paycom Ticket Sales
75 M


Tencent Deal
65 M


Paycom Rev. Share
35 M






Total Revenue in 25/26 Season
460 M

21.57 percent of NBA revenue is from ticket sales .. down from almost 30% in 2010/2011

so yeah that is a primary source of revenue

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193410/percentage-of-ticketing-revenue-in-the-nba-since-2006/

Something accounting for less than a quarter of revenue is actually not "primary", especially given the precipitous decline your very stats mention. When you do provide evidence it seems to run counter to your main claims.

I think the uniforms, brands and logos are fine. Have no idea why anyone doesn't like them.

The people funding the arena are not getting priced out. The NBA and its teams do not make any money if people do not go to their games, watch their games, buy their merchandise or food & beverage at their games.

This entire thing is about creating more suites and premium seating. Thus the majority of citizens that will fund the tax continuation will most likely have reduced access to “cheap seats”. Most arenas being constructed in this day and age are favoring fewer overall seats for more exclusive premium seats.

They only get % of sales on premium/luxury seating. Not whole event, I believe.

I’m curious if this is the real reason we’re losing major events to Tulsa. Could it be the Thunder is holding back bigger names due to the percentage they get?

I’m curious if this is the real reason we’re losing major events to Tulsa. Could it be the Thunder is holding back bigger names due to the percentage they get?

No.

21.57 percent of NBA revenue is from ticket sales .. down from almost 30% in 2010/2011

so yeah that is a primary source of revenue

Is the money from tickets in decline as you seem to indicate.
How does that compare to TV $, merch sales and sponserships like patches and naming rights? 21% could very well be secondary in comparission especially if that is now

It's not likely that the money from tickets is in decline, it's probably accelerating slightly. The major reason for the drop from 2010/11 numbers was the media rights deal from 2014 (started 2016/17).

Ticket sales as a percentage of overall revenue will likely go down even further with the next media deal, but that being said, it's still a substantial sum of money. Depending on the year: anywhere from $40M to $80M in gate receipts. I'd guess once the new arena is in play it will be anywhere from $60M to $100M depending on the team.

[ON EDIT] Looks like it's not currently accelerating, but it certainly will with the roster we have now:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/381571/gate-receipts-of-the-oklahoma-city-thunder-national-basketball-association/

There are 5 older individuals with a “vote no” banner currently outside of the bancfirst tower being filmed by the news. Just saw this happening

I’m voting yes however.

There are 5 older individuals with a “vote no” banner currently outside of the bancfirst tower being filmed by the news. Just saw this happening

I’m voting yes however.

VOTE YES! We can’t let the olds win!!! lol, jk

There are 5 older individuals with a “vote no” banner currently outside of the bancfirst tower being filmed by the news. Just saw this happening

I’m voting yes however.

I think it’s the OK Progress Now peeps

I think it’s the OK Progress Now peeps

The what peeps?

Last night Mayor Holt did an event at Boomtown Creamery on 23rd, I stopped by to pick up a pint and chatted briefly with him about the new arena proposal. I gave him my opinion about waiting a nice mixed use component as a part of the development and that it would be a good opportunity to better connect Sante Fe Station to Downtown by improving the pedestrian access across EK Gaylord.

VOTE YES! We can’t let the olds win!!! lol, jk

That is actually good marketing. *Look the old people don't want us to have fun*

That is actually good marketing. *Look the old people don't want us to have fun*

Don't know what this thing is for segregating out the old, but amongst my "old" friends we are all in support of it.... and btw, in general, we probably have more fun than the "youngs" anyway.

i’m curious if this is the real reason we’re losing major events to tulsa. Could it be the thunder is holding back bigger names due to the percentage they get?

no.

Don't know what this thing is for segregating out the old, but amongst my "old" friends we are all in support of it.... and btw, in general, we probably have more fun than the "youngs" anyway.

Something to look forward to I suppose.

no.

Do you have any additional insight?

I tend to believe for any artist considering which venue to choose between OKC and Tulsa it comes down to the bottom line negotiated with the management company.

Tulsa has an advantage by not needing to comp the Thunder a percentage. So the question becomes are we being told there is a need for a new arena that can draw more artists simply so new seating arrangements can get us back to a level place with Tulsa.

This makes more sense to me than the great “loading dock” myth that they mayor hasn’t mentioned a single time in any official statement.

Well, if this gets voted down and we lose the Thunder, I guess we can use the Paycom for cockfighting if Stitt gets what he wants. SMH

Do you have any additional insight?

I tend to believe for any artist considering which venue to choose between OKC and Tulsa it comes down to the bottom line negotiated with the management company.

Tulsa has an advantage by not needing to comp the Thunder a percentage. So the question becomes are we being told there is a need for a new arena that can draw more artists simply so new seating arrangements can get us back to a level place with Tulsa.

This makes more sense to me than the great “loading dock” myth that they mayor hasn’t mentioned a single time in any official statement.

So your conspiracy theory thst hasn't been mentioned ever by anyone aside from you is more plausible than one many on here have said is a fact, including, me, who has friends who work for the arena?

Got it. SouthOKC has everything figured out :)

So your conspiracy theory thst hasn't been mentioned ever by anyone aside from you is more plausible than one many on here have said is a fact, including, me, who has friends who work for the arena?

Got it. SouthOKC has everything figured out :)

The Thunder have a contract that lays out the compensation they receive. No conspiracy involved with that statement.

I just find it interesting the mayor outlined a new arena would help attract top acts, but never once mentioned the loading docks. Either it’s not an issue or he doesn’t view it as something that couldn’t easily be overcome.

Do you have any additional insight?

I tend to believe for any artist considering which venue to choose between OKC and Tulsa it comes down to the bottom line negotiated with the management company.

Tulsa has an advantage by not needing to comp the Thunder a percentage. So the question becomes are we being told there is a need for a new arena that can draw more artists simply so new seating arrangements can get us back to a level place with Tulsa.

This makes more sense to me than the great “loading dock” myth that they mayor hasn’t mentioned a single time in any official statement.
I don’t want to appear dismissive, so, I will say that I’m guessing the touring and arena management business is so closely aligned that there is zero benefit to any artist regarding some percentage of revenue on suites. Like, the Tulsa arena management company would take the same percentage for themselves and not share with the city. I think the touring entertainment business is very small at the top.

The Thunder have a contract that lays out the compensation they receive. No conspiracy involved with that statement.

I just find it interesting the mayor outlined a new arena would help attract top acts, but never once mentioned the loading docks. Either it’s not an issue or he doesn’t view it as something that couldn’t easily be overcome.
People who actually know, know. The fact you don’t know that it’s an issue is telling.

The Thunder have a contract that lays out the compensation they receive. No conspiracy involved with that statement.

I just find it interesting the mayor outlined a new arena would help attract top acts, but never once mentioned the loading docks. Either it’s not an issue or he doesn’t view it as something that couldn’t easily be overcome.

No, because mentioning mundane details doesn't benefit 90% of the public. He has mentioned loading docks a lot on facebook comments and instagram posts. He knows they are a problem, but he also knows nuts and bolts aren't sexy. He isn't being deceitful, because he has acknowledged the true problem if anyone wants to go further than the press releases. He has gone in-depth in numerous comments on social media.

Done discussing this.

Not sure if it has been shared yet, but the long-awaited Chamber of Commerce study on the economic impact of the arena was finally released tonight. Take from it what you will.

https://www.velocityokc.com/clientuploads/PDFs/Economic_and_Revenue_Impacts_of_OKC_Arena.pdf



INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The City of Oklahoma City is proposing to build a new arena that would host Oklahoma City Thunder
games and other events. This new arena would replace Paycom Center where the Oklahoma City Thunder
has played since they moved to Oklahoma in 2008. In 2022-23, Paycom Center hosted 43 Thunder home
games, 23 Oklahoma City Blue home games and 47 other ticketed events including concerts and other
sporting events. Attendance at Oklahoma City Thunder games and other events has largely rebounded
from the pandemic with close to 1.1 million people attending events at Paycom Center in 2022-23, and
average attendance at Oklahoma City Thunder games is continuing to increase 2023-24. This analysis
provides a framework for understanding the economic and tax impacts that the arena supports using
information provided by ASM Global and the Oklahoma City Thunder. The report includes the continuing
economic impacts of jobs supported by the operations of the arena and the Oklahoma City Thunder,
visitor spending outside the arena, and tax revenues from visitors and employees. All total, the arena
supports an estimated annual economic impact of $590.0 million in Oklahoma City.

- Paycom Center currently hosts 114 events per year. The number of ticketed third-party events could
increase. The operations of the arena and the operations of the Oklahoma City Thunder support an
annual economic impact of $513.0 million, directly and indirectly supporting close to 2,500 jobs and
$273.8 million in annual labor income.

- With a total of about 472,900 non-local visitor days per year for basketball games and ticketed thirdparty events, the arena supports an estimated $45.5 million in annual visitor expenditures outside the
arena for lodging, food, retail and local transportation. This level of visitor generates an induced
economic impact of $77.0 million per year, supporting 795 jobs at local businesses.

- The estimated construction cost for a new arena is $900.5 million, including $693.0 million in hard
costs that create local economic impacts. The estimated economic impact of construction could total
$1.3 billion, supporting over 10,000 jobs during the construction period.

- In addition to these economic impacts, local spending by ticketed event attendees in the arena and
outside the arena, as well as household spending by arena staff, Oklahoma City Thunder players and
staff, and indirect and induced workers supported by the operations of the arena supports $9 million
in city taxes, $4 million in county, school and other local district taxes and $17 million in state taxes
each year.

$900 million divided by 500K population works out to be roughly $1,800 per person. It's not "just a penny".

Another way to look at it is if you spend $30k per year, that's $300 in sales taxes for the stadium. $300/yr x 6yrs is $1,800. Of course, the amount you pay will depend on how much you spend in OKC and how much you order online.

The question is, is a new stadium worth $1,800 to you, or would you rather spend the money on something else? Or would you rather end the "temporary tax" and put the $1,800 in your pocket?