Thunder's internal polling has it at 60% yes. Guess we'll see how good their polling is.

Link please . . .

This isn't an appeal to a debate or argument: I agree with her.

That’s cool! This is America and you have the right to be wrong and tell us about it.

If you want to vote with the most regressive councilman in the city, power to you!

I have zero idea what this graphic hopes to illustrate?

...that the OKC proposal is anomalously low? Surely you can see that it's a clear outlier here.
Oh, man...you're so right! Here it was just staring us in the face this whole time! Clearly the deal is WAY worse than the deals with the other 18 teams in the NBA! What's that..? You say there are THIRTY teams in the NBA?! Why in the heck would those not have been included, if so? Maybe there just wasn't enough room in the paper...SURELY they wouldn't have left them out simply because they didn't fit the narrative, would they? Doing that would betray abject intellectual dishonesty.

Sarcasm aside, those one-dimensional figures - and who knows how accurate they are coming from a pub that apparently doesn't even proofread their opinion pieces - tell only a part of the story. And there is no attempt here - or from others who are trying to make dollars-only arguments - to tell the full story. And the fact that it only lists the roughly half of the NBA that appears on the surface to have a better deal is a red flag the size of a football field.

There are layers upon layers of missing context. What is the team's rent in each of those buildings? What is the revenue split on non-NBA rents? How about the concessions split? Who pays for the labor on game nights? Who pays on non-game nights? What percentage of the overhead do they pay? Who manages and maintains the building? How much does that cost the team, or conversely, how much does it cost the city in question?

Also, while I have no specific insight, I can PROMISE that the teams who 100% own their building are doing it because in their respective markets being the building owner is a profitable endeavor. Meaning they want to own the building because they can turn a profit on the other events it brings. That puts them into a very select class of cities; cities where it's actually profitable to operate a venue. In nearly every other city in America arenas operate at a loss. Just like parks, libraries, performing arts centers...buildings like these are almost always amenities, not profit-centers. I can promise that if there was a path to make the building profitable the Thunder's owners would be 100% all for owning it.

But, at the end of the day OKC is a marginal though aspirational market. And team owners can't be expected to shoulder the building burden. As a city we have a choice to make: do we want to remain an NBA city, with progressively better entertainment options such as concerts, or do we not? The path is very clear in both directions. No amount of intellectual dishonesty or cherry-picked and incomplete data can change this simple fact.

Oh, man...you're so right! Here it was just staring us in the face this whole time! Clearly the deal is WAY worse than the deals with the other 18 teams in the NBA! What's that..? You say there are THIRTY teams in the NBA?! Why in the heck would those not have been included, if so? Maybe there just wasn't enough room in the paper...SURELY they wouldn't have left them out because they didn't fit the narrative, would they? Doing that would betray abject intellectual dishonesty.

Sarcasm aside, those one-dimensional figures - and who knows how accurate they are coming from a pub that apparently doesn't even proofread their opinion pieces - tell only a part of the story. And there is no attempt here - or from others who are trying to make dollars-only arguments - to tell the full story. And the fact that it only lists the roughly half of the NBA that appears on the surface to have a better deal is a red flag the size of a football field.

There are layers upon layers of missing context. What is the team's rent in each of those buildings? What is the revenue split on non-NBA rents? How about the concessions split? Who pays for the labor on game nights? Who pays on non-game nights? What percentage of the overhead do they pay? Who manages and maintains the building? How much does that cost the team, or conversely, how much does it cost the city in question?

Also, while I have no specific insight, I can PROMISE that the teams who 100% own their building are doing it because in their respective markets being the building owner is a profitable endeavor. Meaning they want to own the building because they can turn a profit on the other events it brings. That puts them into a very select class of cities; cities where it's actually profitable to operate a venue. In nearly every other city in America arenas operate at a loss. Just like parks, libraries, performing arts centers...buildings like these are almost always amenities, not profit-centers. I can promise that if there was a path to make the building profitable the Thunder's owners would be 100% all for owning it.

But, at the end of the day OKC is a marginal though aspirational market. And team owners can't be expected to shoulder the building burden. As a city we have a choice to make: do we want to remain an NBA city, or do we not? The path is very clear in both directions. No amount of intellectual dishonesty or cherry-picked and incomplete data can change this simple fact.

I think Salt Lake City has a 30-40 year old building. Former Jazz owner, the late Larry Miller was a large presence in Utah for a long time. I'm sure the city has been very supportive of his efforts.

Denver has Walmart family member Stan Kroenke as owner of both the NBA and NHL teams.

I have no idea who the 80% would be in Los Angeles. The Lakers, Clippers and Kings are all tenants of the same arena.

What would be the team's argument for making the move? "We demanded an arena deal that is completely off the charts from anything that has ever happened in American sports, and they said no to that arrangement but are in the process of coming up with something more in line with what everyone else has done, and now we want to punish them."

And of course, if they could make billions by selling, what is going to stop from doing exactly that even after a new arena is built? What's the worst case in such a transaction? The team has to negotiate a buyout or merely pay the remainder on the lease (exactly like they did in Seattle)? If the argument is they would make a huge profit by selling, a new arena doesn't change that in any substantial way.

The honest worst case scenario for a no vote would look something like the Thunder being sold to a Seattle based ownership group. Many in the NBA still view the original sale of the Sonics and eventual move from Seattle to Oklahoma City as the premeditated theft of a franchise. To be completely honest it was, but I don't think any of us want to complain about that fact. The NBA board of governors would absolutely not stop a trade sending the Thunder to a larger media market that just so happens to be the original home of the franchise. The entire league stands to benefit financially from moving from one of the smallest media markets to a larger one, and having the opportunity to still expand to two additional media markets. NBA expansion is going to happen and Seattle and Vegas are the next two NBA cities, it is an open secret in the NBA world. With a no vote we will get to see if the NBA is going to try to go back to Vancouver or swing big and try to establish a franchise in Mexico.

If this fails and the Thunder leaves--let's go after the NHL Phoenix Coyotes.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/20/1382279862001/NHL-Phoenix-Coyotes-at-An-001.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none

Plan a new arena vote for the NHL in OKC and let the Coyotes use the 15.152 seat Payom Center as a temporary home until a new NHL arena is built, let's see what the Coyotes' owner would contribute toward a new arena.

Would have some great rivals in Dallas Stars, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, Chicago Blackhawks and Colorado Avalanche.Nooooooooo!!!!!! I'd be completely torn. I should be a fan of my local team but I'm a HUGE Avalanche fan!

I voted around 1. From parking to leaving I saw about 20 people

This whole yes- they stay and owners “pay/donate” very little vs no- they leave and the owners sell and make more money is very much the plot of Promised Land to me. Reading how the owners are donating little or having secret talks to move- like every action/reaction is their working of both sides. A continuation of the tax to me (born/raised here) is not a “new” tax like this is being spun. My family is not “on-the hook” for 1200-1600 per person on this arena, as the anti-vote will tell you. Countless times some people in this forum will ask for hardline info about how the Thunder have changed the economy/outlook of our city and all one needs to do is remember what the core looked like before. Are the numbers mind boggling - yes, but is it worth it- yes to me.

...Countless times some people in this forum will ask for hardline info about how the Thunder have changed the economy/outlook of our city and all one needs to do is remember what the core looked like before....

Some, yes, but not *all* of OKC/core's renaissance is due to the Thunder. And no, I don't know how much of the percentage is or what the rest of it would be due to, nor do I have the time to research it, but it's kind of disingenuous to say the Thunder made OKC/core what it is today by them coming here to the exclusion of all other factors.

I voted "No" yesterday because it is a raw deal for the tax payers. A relatively "no risk" deal for the owners with all of the profit and very little financial layout.

Sadly, I believe that the majority of OKC residents who vote are easily mislead and manipulated all for the promise of bread and circuses.

Some, yes, but not *all* of OKC/core's renaissance is due to the Thunder. And no, I don't know how much of the percentage is or what the rest of it would be due to, nor do I have the time to research it, but it's kind of disingenuous to say the Thunder made OKC/core what it is today by them coming here to the exclusion of all other factors.

They are all intertwined. One contributes to the other. Thunder helped/okc grows/okc growing/Thunder came- all works together. Side note- everytime I see your handle, The Traveller by Flock of Seagulls plays in my head.

The honest worst case scenario for a no vote would look something like the Thunder being sold to a Seattle based ownership group. Many in the NBA still view the original sale of the Sonics and eventual move from Seattle to Oklahoma City as the premeditated theft of a franchise. To be completely honest it was, but I don't think any of us want to complain about that fact. The NBA board of governors would absolutely not stop a trade sending the Thunder to a larger media market that just so happens to be the original home of the franchise. The entire league stands to benefit financially from moving from one of the smallest media markets to a larger one, and having the opportunity to still expand to two additional media markets. NBA expansion is going to happen and Seattle and Vegas are the next two NBA cities, it is an open secret in the NBA world. With a no vote we will get to see if the NBA is going to try to go back to Vancouver or swing big and try to establish a franchise in Mexico.

Seattle doesn't have an NBA arena. The NHL Kraken are the anchor tenant of Climate Pledge Arena. I'm guessing it would take $75 million a year to get them to take second position in the arena.

Seattle is a large market, no doubt. It also features the NFL, MLB, NHL, plus MLS and WNBA do count for something there.

Las Vegas is a great place. To visit. 2.5 million people with population within 200 miles relatively small. Las Vegas has NHL, NFL, (soon to be) MLB as seasonal sports dollar competition. Annual super sporting events include NFR, Formula 1and the NBA in season tournament.

Laas Vegas does not have an NBA available arena. T-Mobile has the NHL Golden Knights as primary tenant, and one of the highest demand levels in the country for any other dates.

My point being that other cities might be not generate more money than OKC quickly, easily and with no risk.

The current Thunder ownership won't move the team to those or any other cities. They will inevitably RECEIVE PURCHASE OFFERS from OTHER prospective owners. Which they will almost assuredly take, stuck in a building becoming rapidly obsolete and with no ability to add revenue while operating costs spiral, AND with a chance to get 10X their original purchase price.

And - with no NBA-capable arena on the horizon in OKC - those new owners will have no reason or incentive to stay in OKC. And in fact, they will almost certainly be just like the Thunder's ownership group was in 2006 when they purchased the Supersonics; that is, they will be buying with the ultimate intention of having an NBA team in THEIR city. None of those stats listed above will have any bearing on whether or not they move. They WILL move. Period.

Seattle doesn't have an NBA arena. The NHL Kraken are the anchor tenant of Climate Pledge Arena. I'm guessing it would take $75 million a year to get them to take second position in the arena.


that is not how it works ..

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

Then, I think the state legislature would get involved, which should have happened at the outset. Then some sort of package would start to take shape from both the state and the City.


What is it about using state funds that changes the calculus for NO voters who don't want a publicly owned arena with a major tenant? Would it just be cash that isn't directly voted on? Would there be tax district carve out(s) like Wisconsin?

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding, if this deal is politically untenable, how any other that uses public funds would be. The crux of the NO vote seems to be public money should not be spent building any public venues used in part by high value tenants. I know your position has been more nuanced, but the greater NO vote's arguments are generally more blunt.

I also have not gotten any sense that there is any kind of consensus among NO voters of what would satisfy them. I think we can all agree that a privately financed venue worthy of current NBA arena standards is not within the realm of reality for OKC, at least not within the time frame being discussed.

The current Thunder ownership won't move the team to those or any other cities. They will inevitably RECEIVE PURCHASE OFFERS from OTHER prospective owners. Which they will almost assuredly take, stuck in a building becoming rapidly obsolete and with no ability to add revenue while operating costs spiral, AND with a chance to get 10X their original purchase price.

And - with no NBA-capable arena on the horizon in OKC - those new owners will have no reason or incentive to stay in OKC. And in fact, they will almost certainly be just like the Thunder's ownership group was in 2006 when they purchased the Supersonics; that is, they will be buying with the ultimate intention of having an NBA team in THEIR city. None of those stats listed above will have any bearing on whether or not they move. They WILL move. Period.

Ballmer desired to move a team to Seattle because he was living in the state of Washington, and said his wife did not want to leave. But according to the former Microsoft CEO, the NBA did not want to move the Kings away from Sacramento.

“The Commissioner basically says, ‘Hey, you buy the team if you want to, but you keep it in Sacramento,” Ballmer said.

Source: https://www.thestreet.com/sports/steve-ballmer-seattle-supersonics-move-nba

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?
Good grief, you're making this much harder than it needs to be, which is puzzling because I've never taken you to be obtuse. If the building is approved and becomes the basis for a long-term, stable revenue for the team that can be easily adapted to new types of revenue streams, the team won't leave. Should there be language that makes it more difficult for future owners to bail? Absolutely; I agree that there should be. And I would suspect the current ownership group would be at least reasonably cooperative in its addition, because I think they've demonstrated quite markedly over the past two decades that they are committed to having a team in OKC, for a variety of reasons.

I think I'm the first person on this board who brought up the possibility that the ownership is likely to change some even with a new arena, but the reasons for that aren't based on intel or an announcement, they're based on human nature and on reality. It already HAS changed, in the past. Folks age out, folks pass away, some folks might want to cash in on the fruits of their labor and cash out on their investment. When I said I would anticipate ownership changes in the future THAT'S what I was talking about, and it has turned into yet another way for some to twist the story to their benefit.

I believe strongly that the present ownership is trying to put the team into the strongest position possible for the long term in this marginal market, so that no matter what befalls the current owner group the team will remain. Legacy work for them.

But I also strongly believe they are likely to take the inevitable calls from the vultures who will reach out the day after the vote fails, should that be the case.

Edit: one thing I'd also add is that if/when some percentage of the ownership group changes, the chances are very high that the new owners would be from OKC or have OKC ties. Will be much easier to accomplish with a secure team future. Without a new building, however, new owners would almost certainly be vultures from out of state, looking ultimately to relocate.

that is not how it works ..

So, tell me how it works. With more than 5 dismissive words.

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

That would be the true worse case scenario. Hope whoever buys a stake or inherits their dad's/husbands stake when he passes away likes OKC/Oklahoma enough.

This should be a warning that we need to continue to improve ourselves and build leverage. Oklahoma City is not the only city that can have extraordinary circumstances to benefit it.

I voted "No" yesterday because it is a raw deal for the tax payers. A relatively "no risk" deal for the owners with all of the profit and very little financial layout.

Sadly, I believe that the majority of OKC residents who vote are easily mislead and manipulated all for the promise of bread and circuses.

Completely disagree. If the vote turns out to be NO, then a state of depression will overtake a lot of folks. It happened when the National Finals Rodeo left for Vegas. If this arena build didn't come up, then you'd be paying a penny MAPS 5 take for the next six years.

Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that.

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

The city will own the arena outright. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Thunder would be locked in until 2050 ?

Guys I’m afraid it’s over for those of us who are for the arena. None other than highly esteemed astronaut, doctor, pilot, nascar driver turned representative George Santos has chimed in on the conversation in support of the opposition. The vote is doomed (sarcasm heavier than his “resume”).

THE BIG GUNS ARE OUT!

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-progress-now-george-santos-cameo-downtown-okc-arena/46075691

...
Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that.

I seriously doubt it would be that drastic, the Thunder didn't create everything over their tenure here all by their lonesome, and they're not going to turn their Mega Maid to "suck" mode and take all the new places/people/investments with them...

Completely disagree. If the vote turns out to be NO, then a state of depression will overtake a lot of folks. It happened when the National Finals Rodeo left for Vegas. If this arena build didn't come up, then you'd be paying a penny MAPS 5 take for the next six years.

Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that.
Exactly! Take the Thunder out of the equation and it's still about OKC being a major city, or not, and having great things, or not. We should expect, and expect to pay for, great things. The penny tax may not ever go away so why not have one project paid for by that penny that's just fun! I might never go to another Thunder game but I'd like to have a world class concert venue. Which is why I voted YES!

I’ve also seen a ton of sponsored ads from the yes campaign the last few days. No mailers this week.

The city will own the arena outright. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Thunder would be locked in until 2050 ?

Teams break leases all the time. Amd the thunder said they would agree to sign a lease until 2050 but nothing is binding them to it. They could leave once their current lease is up. Would you trust a gentlemen handshake? And I am being purposely obtuse in some ways because I don't think the thunder will leave if this fails. But people are acting all doom and gloom. The reality is even if the thunder sign on in a new a arena a lot of teams have left under similar circumstances. I will always reiterate that I think this will pass. But in say 6 years the city will have other priorities bigger than an arena how will the city raise funds to mitigate fixing those priorities.

1849118491

Keep in mind that this is the 2nd best the opposition can do.. That's OKC for ya.

Did he 'Santos' say 'stay queen.' Let's not forget why this former 'drag queen' got expelled from Congress for doing.

We don't need advice from a former public official who scammed his way into Congress. Run along 'Miss Thing.''

Odd thing I saw as I pulled out of the Election Board. A guy stopped by the Lincoln median and pulled up 2 "KEEP OKC BIG LEAGUE" signs and took them away. There were tons of signs so it wasn't a matter of trying to not have anyone see them. I wonder what he was doing?

I seriously doubt it would be that drastic, the Thunder didn't create everything over their tenure here all by their lonesome, and they're not going to turn their Mega Maid to "suck" mode and take all the new places/people/investments with them...

no but it will quickly silence much of the buzz that’s built up around the city for quite awhile. It may not mean much to some people but it would be enough ti make me reconsider whether I want to stay in OKC or OK long term in general.others here have said similar. The fact that we were on the rise and had a ton more of momentum when I graduated in 2010 was largely why I decided to stay here and the Thunder were a huge part of that. Hard to put a price on civic pride.

Odd thing I saw as I pulled out of the Election Board. A guy stopped by the Lincoln median and pulled up 2 "KEEP OKC BIG LEAGUE" signs and took them away. There were tons of signs so it wasn't a matter of trying to not have anyone see them. I wonder what he was doing?

Saw an easy opportunity to put a couple in his own yard?

Teams break leases all the time. Amd the thunder said they would agree to sign a lease until 2050 but nothing is binding them to it. They could leave once their current lease is up. Would you trust a gentlemen handshake? And I am being purposely obtuse in some ways because I don't think the thunder will leave if this fails. But people are acting all doom and gloom. The reality is even if the thunder sign on in a new a arena a lot of teams have left under similar circumstances. I will always reiterate that I think this will pass. But in say 6 years the city will have other priorities bigger than an arena how will the city raise funds to mitigate fixing those priorities.

1849118491

Keep in mind that this is the 2nd best the opposition can do.. That's OKC for ya.

Name the last 5 examples of a team breaking a lease and relocating. Then do the same for teams withh brand new arenas and stadiums.

no but it will quickly silence much of the buzz that’s built up around the city for quite awhile. It may not mean much to some people but it would be enough ti make me reconsider whether I want to stay in OKC or OK long term in general.others here have said similar. The fact that we were on the rise and had a ton more of momentum when I graduated in 2010 was largely why I decided to stay here and the Thunder were a huge part of that. Hard to put a price on civic pride.

I've lived here from 1965 - 1995, then from 2009 - present, so I know a bit about OKC civic pride, and yeah, it would dent it, and things would slow down, but there's no way it would revert back to the late 90s, no way.

I've lived here from 1965 - 1995, then from 2009 - present, so I know a bit about OKC civic pride, and yeah, it would dent it, and things would slow down, but there's no way it would revert back to the late 90s, no way.

but why give it a chance to dent it?

I've lived here from 1965 - 1995, then from 2009 - present, so I know a bit about OKC civic pride, and yeah, it would dent it, and things would slow down, but there's no way it would revert back to the late 90s, no way.

I've lived here since 1987 so it's not like I don't have any understanding of it. I fully intended to leave after graduating as did many people I went to school with. Would it go back to the 1990s, of course not, but it would be a massive hit to the way the city is perceived by people around my age and younger which is the group that will dictate the city's growth for the next 30+ years. Things didn't become like they were in the 90s overnight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3rD2mCw6mg

I've lived here since 1987 so it's not like I don't have any understanding of it. I fully intended to leave after graduating as did many people I went to school with. Would it go back to the 1990s, of course not, but it would be a massive hit to the way the city is perceived by people around my age and younger which is the group that will dictate the city's growth for the next 30+ years. Things didn't become like they were in the 90s overnight.

Yes, exactly, that's pretty much what I was saying, disagreeing with Bellaboo's statement of "Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that."

Yes, exactly, that's pretty much what I was saying, disagreeing with Bellaboo's statement of "Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that."

thats fair…BUT IT COULD!!!

kidding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3rD2mCw6mg




While this was meant to be funny and from 2011, it's scary how quickly you can sway/influence general public opinion based upon complete nonsense and fabricated stories.

Makes me wonder how much more disinformation is out there trying to improperly sway a vote one way or the other for passing this on Tuesday.

Got bored and decided to take a look myself. Wasn’t really sure how to look up whether a team broke a lease but here are all permanent relocations for big 4 sports teams over the last 30 years and the stadium/arena age at the time of relocation.

There are currently 124 big 4 pro-sports teams and there have been 16 relocations in the last 30 years. 4 of those relocations involved a franchise moving twice so 14 total franchises have relocated. The Grizzlies are the only team that relocated with a building under 12 years old. Average facility age at relocation is 31.5 years.

18492

On the flip side, this is also a pretty good argument for how rare relocations are in general, especially among successful franchises, and how it’s more likely that the team would at least try to work with the city if the vote fails vs just raising the white flag and abandoning ship at the first sign of failure after a pretty successful 15 year run here. Personally that’s not a risk I’m willing to take as it doesn’t seem worth it for maybe at best $50-100 million more out of the owners just to stick it to the man, but to each his own. Whether we continue to pay a penny sales tax for an extra year on this vs using it for another purpose during that extra year or finally retire it seems pretty inconsequential when the other potential option is losing the team.

Good grief, you're making this much harder than it needs to be

You can say this about 97% of the posts on this topic. So many posts are filled with incorrect facts/information that people take and run with as fact.

I look at MAPS as a slush fund created by the city to make the city better as a whole. Building a new arena with MAPS, to me, fits exactly the definition that's been created by the history of MAPS projects. All projects were done to better the city and while I haven't cared for all the projects personally, I recognize the city as a whole is better as a result. Other cities have had extreme interests in how OKC has implemented MAPS and used it to create debt-free quality of life infrastructure for us and future generations. MAPS is generally heralded as a major success eyed by many municipalities across the country.

That being said, I believe that a new arena downtown is exactly what MAPS is for. One could make the argument that we built the first arena with the money and we're already replacing it and it's perfect. I can understand that is somewhat debatable, but we built that to attract something here -- which we got. It wasn't built to the specifications of a particular team and as a result I don't think there were many splurges to make it the best in the country. Now that we got the team, let's build the best arena suited for our Thunder and make them happy for another 30-50 years with it. OKC benefits from it three fold.

The best part about it is that there is no new tax at all. It's just a continuation of what we've done since 1993. It's not like we're mortgaging our kids future by doing this. This is a vote asking the city if we want to move forward and there are no details to be had really. They're saying hey we think it'll probably be around said amount of money to do this, do you want to do it? I mean, when we voted for MAPS in the past we didn't demand designs and details of projects necessarily. We voted on the idea to do it and many of the details came to fruition as a result.

I like it. It's a YES vote for me.

My entire point is NOT to take a step backwards. No way we will suck as bad as pre MAPS, but believe me the exposure the Thunder brings to OKC would dry up fast.

I went to the game last night, which was a classic. I would hate for OKC to lose the opportunity to move forward as a first class city.

IIRC David Stern told Clay Bennet that the Hornets would return to New Orleans, and that if he wanted a team he should pursue the Super Sonics.

That he did with 350 million dollars, and a penalty price that was agreed to by the city of Seattle. We all know the rest of the story.

People should look at the Stl Rams when they relocated back to La. A Stl guy Stan Kroenke owns the team and although he didn't sell the team he moved them back to La to enrich himself. These Pro teams are all about maximizing the potential profits. Stl is larger than OKC and Tulsa combined and is somewhere around the 20th largest market and he moved the the 2nd largest market so he could make more $$$$. If he can do it don't think for a second the Thunder ownership couldn't do it. It's all about making that almighty dollar when it comes to Pro Sports. BTW, Kroenke did end up paying the city of Stl around 700 mil. after they settled a law suit so they did come away with that but they lost their team so the average Joe was the real loser. I will be voting yes! Build a really nice arena and don't cut any corners. Do it right OKC

^^ Thank You !

Link please . . .

Well it wouldn’t be an internal poll then would it. It’s from my ticket rep, so you’ll have to wait and see.

Vote in the world you have not the perfect idealistic one you want.

Losing the thunder would do incalculable damage to okc. From the fact we were the lead in on sports center last night to all our major companies citing the thunder as one of their recruiting tools.

Vote in the world you have not the perfect idealistic one you want.

Losing the thunder would do incalculable damage to okc. From the fact we were the lead in on sports center last night to all our major companies citing the thunder as one of their recruiting tools.

Exactly. It would be devastating to the recruiting efforts at Dobson Fiber, MidFirst Bank, Balon Valves, and American Fidelity if the team skipped town.

Exactly. It would be devastating to the recruiting efforts at Dobson Fiber, MidFirst Bank, Balon Valves, and American Fidelity if the team skipped town.

Yeah and every other company here as well as our goal of growing the city.

I think that comment might’ve been tongue in cheek and dismissive based on AITP’s previous posts on this topic, but who knows? Tone is often difficult to discern online.

Saw an easy opportunity to put a couple in his own yard?

I figured something like that.

I think that comment might’ve been tongue in cheek and dismissive based on AITP’s previous posts on this topic, but who knows? Tone is often difficult to discern online.

fair

IIRC David Stern told Clay Bennet that the Hornets would return to New Orleans, and that if he wanted a team he should pursue the Super Sonics.

That he did with 350 million dollars, and a penalty price that was agreed to by the city of Seattle. We all know the rest of the story.

Interesting you bring up the fact that the Hornets wanted to stay in OKC but the league said "no".
Yet an arguement for the arena is a no vote will lead to relocation. Prior history seems to be that NBA franchises can't relocate without league approval.

There were many extenuating circumstances in the Hornets situation, although you don’t acknowledge them in your post. The NBA board of governors will 100% approve a relocation away from a building that loses money for a franchise, in a community that demonstrates disinterest in retaining them via a modern arena. This much had been clearly proven in the past.

Interesting you bring up the fact that the Hornets wanted to stay in OKC but the league said "no".
Yet an arguement for the arena is a no vote will lead to relocation. Prior history seems to be that NBA franchises can't relocate without league approval.

Haha, the NBA, by most rights, has no business in OKC. We are too small of a market. Most of the markets smaller are relocations (coincidence, I think not). This is a flawed idea that the league will want to keep a team in a far-below middle of the road market...

Interesting you bring up the fact that the Hornets wanted to stay in OKC but the league said "no".
Yet an arguement for the arena is a no vote will lead to relocation. Prior history seems to be that NBA franchises can't relocate without league approval.

Pretty sure that had more to do with the NBA not wanting to appear to be abandoning New Orleans after the worst hurricane and one of the worst natural disasters in recent history than just not wanting a team to relocate…especially since they approved the sonic/thunder’s move two years later.

Haha, the NBA, by most rights, has no business in OKC. We are too small of a market. Most of the markets smaller are relocations (coincidence, I think not). This is a flawed idea that the league will want to keep a team in a far-below middle of the road market...

That’s not completely true. There are definitely some advantages to being the only show in town vs being the second or third pro team in a larger city assuming you have the facilities, etc to put your earning potential on par with those teams if everything else was equal.

I'm voting YES because I want to keep OKC moving forward. To continue to pay a tax that I have been paying for the last 30 years doesn't bother me either.

That’s not completely true. There are definitely some advantages to being the only show in town vs being the second or third pro team in a larger city assuming you have the facilities, etc to put your earning potential on par with those teams if everything else was equal.

That's fair. I can see that.