Here’s the Reddit post to see for yourself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/18fkdpc/espn_oklahoma_city_voters_mull_tax_to_build_900m/

If someone says anything with negativity and confidence on Reddit then someone will agree that it's a problem. Also so many people on Reddit just hate on OKC without having anything to do with the Thunder. Complainers can have too much power on Reddit lol

The only thing you left out was: “Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Absolutely!

Here’s the Reddit post to see for yourself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/18fkdpc/espn_oklahoma_city_voters_mull_tax_to_build_900m/

lots don't understand that OKC is not taking on long term debt with this ... OKC is not giving up arena control with this (which makes it different then the other cities (good or bad is a different issue it is a different type of deal) ) and OKC is a small market with 0 leverage ..

the only "comparable" deals are memphis 0 team donation and Orlando 10% team donation ..

The main NBA subreddit is exactly what it sounds like. Fans of the NBA. Obviously most users there are fans of a specific team, sometimes multiple. So speaking on relativity, there is very few Thunder fans in comparison to say the LA teams, Heat, or Warriors, etc. So definitely not local sentiment, but it is interesting to see the thoughts of other NBA fans. Many of them are saying the same things as people here, the deal is bad - stop giving free money to billionaires.

Tinfoil hat: You can set yourself a "flair" in that subreddit which indicates which team you're a fan of (including teams that do not currently exist). That being said, the amount of Seattle Supersonics flairs that are really enjoying this vote debate is wild. In fact, the trolling is almost convincing me that the NO campaign is somehow being funded by Seattle based operations. That is super tinfoil hat, I know - but it is wild to see how many Supersonics fans actually think they can get their team back.

For anyone that is not really a close follower of Thunder/NBA. To put into perspective how valuable OKC is right now in terms of team assets + future assets. Literally everyone wants to be in the Thunder's position. There is billionaires out there that would love to simply buy their way into multiple championship contention seasons by way of this arena vote. This team will be running the league the next decade.

I'm sure there would definitely be schadenfreude if we lose the team in a very similar manner to how they lost the team.

Random questions/thoughts: If the "No"s have it, what is the earliest that the Thunder could potentially leave? And is there any precedent for an ownership group shifting a team around twice in that time period (2008-X)?

I'm sure there would definitely be schadenfreude if we lose the team in a very similar manner to how they lost the team.

Random questions/thoughts: If the "No"s have it, what is the earliest that the Thunder could potentially leave? And is there any precedent for an ownership group shifting a team around twice in that time period (2008-X)?

How long did it take OKC to poach the Thunder after The Starbucks guy sold it?

It will happen almost immediately because other suitor cities wouldn’t have to be vetted as strongly as OKC was.

Seattle already has a $1 billion arena with no tenant. The owners here would likely just sell to another ownership group and cash out.

I really hope people look at the big picture here and what damage a no vote would do to this city. I get why people don’t want to help out the billionaires and multimillionaires but our arena is substandard. OKC should have a better arena than Tulsa. It will be a nice amenity for concerts and events and we get to keep our red-hot NBA team.

Don’t overcomplicate this. It should be a no-brainer “Yes” vote.

How long did it take OKC to poach the Thunder after The Starbucks guy sold it?

It will happen almost immediately because other suitor cities wouldn’t have to be vetted as strongly as OKC was.

Seattle already has a $1 billion arena with no tenant. The owners here would likely just sell to another ownership group and cash out.

I really hope people look at the big picture here and what damage a no vote would do to this city. I get why people don’t want to help out the billionaires and multimillionaires but our arena is substandard. OKC should have a better arena than Tulsa. It will be a nice amenity for concerts and events and we get to keep our red-hot NBA team.

Don’t overcomplicate this. It should be a no-brainer “Yes” vote.

Our only hope of this fails is that the state and city get aggressively involved and essentially beg the ownership group to hold off selling until a solution is found. I don’t know that they’ll necessarily be in a hurry to sell but as you suggested previously I think it’s a likely scenario without some pretty major government and private intervention. I’ve said it 100 times but just doesn’t seem worth the risk or fire drill that will require.

One major difference in this and Seattle is that the city/state/community all fervently want the thunder here (outside of a few loud anti-arena voices). Hell my dad and stepdad are way more conservative than me and were extremely turned off enough by all the national anthem kneeling and “woke” stuff that came out of the 2020 season that they stopped watching the team but they both acknowledge how important the team is to the city and are making it a point to vote yes (not making a political argument here …just making a point about how even people who don’t necessarily love the team itself right now still know how important this is to the city/state/fans and care enough to drive to a polling location to vote yes).

I'm sure there would definitely be schadenfreude if we lose the team in a very similar manner to how they lost the team.

Random questions/thoughts: If the "No"s have it, what is the earliest that the Thunder could potentially leave? And is there any precedent for an ownership group shifting a team around twice in that time period (2008-X)?

The Rams moved from LA to St. Louis in 1995, then back to LA in 2015. Probably the best comparison. They were in St. Louis for exactly one stadium lifecycle before the lease effectively ran out and they moved. (Technically, the stadium wasn't nice enough to meet the terms of the lease, which allowed the Rams to opt out. But a 20-year-old stadium was never going to meet the "top-tier" criteria, so for all intents and purposes that's when the lease ended).

I really hope people look at the big picture here and what damage a no vote would do to this city. I get why people don’t want to help out the billionaires and multimillionaires but our arena is substandard. OKC should have a better arena than Tulsa. It will be a nice amenity for concerts and events and we get to keep our red-hot NBA team.


This is what I am having a hard time understanding from the "the owners can buy it themselves!" group. Personally, I want my city to own our arena.

The Rams moved from LA to St. Louis in 1995, then back to LA in 2015. Probably the best comparison. They were in St. Louis for exactly one stadium lifecycle before the lease effectively ran out and they moved. (Technically, the stadium wasn't nice enough to meet the terms of the lease which allowed the Rams to opt out. But a 20-year-old stadium was never going to meet the "top-tier" criteria, so for all intents and purposes that's when the lease ended).

Yeah it didn’t help that during that 20 years the league pivoted hard away from static dome stadiums. Unless you’re in the superdome, everything is either outdoors, outdoors with a canopy, retractable roof or covered in a way that allows a bunch of natural light in and can be opened on the sides to make it feel like an outdoor stadium.

This is what I am having a hard time understanding from the "the owners can buy it themselves!" group. Personally, I want my city to own our arena.

No kidding. I also find it laughable that we’re demanding that they essentially donate more money to something they’ll have no ownership of and, in all likelihood, will be paying rent similar to what other teams that don’t own their arenas do.

Would love for them to have thrown more down on this but I think the outrage would’ve happened whether they paid $50 or $150 million. The no people just generally are anti public funding for anything sports related or in JoBeth Hamas’s case, anything that doesn’t involve transit or buses. Just seems like a really dumb time to die on that hill.

Forgive me if this has been covered already - I certainly haven't been able to keep up with this monster thread.

But... why are we being pressured to vote on this now?

MAPS 4 Sales Tax expires 1-1-2029. Ostensibly, couldn't we wait a few years before voting? Or does it help the process in some way by having the vote in the rearview mirror?

The main NBA subreddit is exactly what it sounds like. Fans of the NBA. Obviously most users there are fans of a specific team, sometimes multiple. So speaking on relativity, there is very few Thunder fans in comparison to say the LA teams, Heat, or Warriors, etc. So definitely not local sentiment, but it is interesting to see the thoughts of other NBA fans. Many of them are saying the same things as people here, the deal is bad - stop giving free money to billionaires.

The NO vote is almost entirely because a major tenant will benefit and people don't like that. There's really no other reason that people on the NBA forum would be actively posting against it. Cities build venues with public money all the time, but only when a profitable tenant is associated with it are you going to get anyone from outside the market even remotely interested in forming an opinion, let alone an actively negative one. The majority position would naturally be indifference, but the indifferent aren't very motivated to create posts on the internet. Beyond that, I can't imagine any reason that anyone, let alone any NBA fans, would actively want Oklahoma City to build itself a new arena to the extent that they would be advocating for it online.


In fact, the trolling is almost convincing me that the NO campaign is somehow being funded by Seattle based operations.

I think it's being funded by former Blazers fans who are excited about the idea of bringing minor league hockey back to downtown OKC.

Forgive me if this has been covered already - I certainly haven't been able to keep up with this monster thread.

But... why are we being pressured to vote on this now?

MAPS 4 Sales Tax expires 1-1-2029. Ostensibly, couldn't we wait a few years before voting? Or does it help the process in some way by having the vote in the rearview mirror?

Pretty sure it’s because their lease on Paycom expired, we don’t want to waste $70 million in maps 4 money on an arena that’s destined for the wrecking ball, and they figured they might as well do it now so that we have a new arena in place by the time Paycom turns 30. The average age of arenas/stadiums for pro-teams that relocated is 31.5 years so while that’s probably just a coincidence, it does seem like that date is relevant when discussing an arena in which there isn’t footprint space for a massive overhaul like MSG and others.

I think it's being funded by former Blazers fans who are excited about the idea of bringing minor league hockey back to downtown OKC.

If that's true, then the Blazer fans can fund the Paycoom Center when the new arena is opened and have a 15,152 seat arena set up for ECHL AA minor league hockey and ice skating events. Tulsa (6,851) and Wichita (3,677) would welcome OKC to the league to help
boost their attendance figures.

ECHL Attendance 2023-24 https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=ECHL2004&sid=2024

I'm sure there would definitely be schadenfreude if we lose the team in a very similar manner to how they lost the team.

Random questions/thoughts: If the "No"s have it, what is the earliest that the Thunder could potentially leave? And is there any precedent for an ownership group shifting a team around twice in that time period (2008-X)?

To be clear-I do not want the Thunder to leave and do not think they will lose the vote.

As far as quick team movement. I think the Vancouver Grizzlies didn't last 10 years before they moved to Memphis. They started around 1995. And the NBA had begun to portray itself as a mature league that carefully chose it's cities and owners to make sure they were financially solid in ownership and market stability. This was a black eye for the league, because it suggested the NBA was only successful in the US.

The Kings would probably be next. In 1972 the Cincinnati Royals moved to Kansas City (and/or KC-Omaha) and became the Kings. They moved to Sacramento in 1985. Their 13 KC-Omaha years reflected the weakness of the NBA of the era, in that they changed their name, so as not to offend the MLB KC Royals, and had to work in 2 cities in order to sell enough tickets to survive. They had done well "enough" in Sacramento until the Great Recession busted out the team owner Maloof family, who were also the Palms Hotel and Casino owners and became over-extended on real estate expansion there. In short order they had Seattle based, Microsoft CEO billionaire and NBA lover Steve Ballmer ready to buy the team and move them to Seattle. The NBA flat refused to allow the team to move based simply on wealth and want. So, it took about 5 years to get a new arena and team owner arraignment finalized. Which let the team stay and a new arena was built. I would love to say that is likely what would happen here if the vote fails, but I think the fact that Sacramento is the capitol of California gave the franchise a level of importance that OKC can't approach.

The Charlotte-New Orleans Hornets era of around 1988-2010 was probably the last of the cash strapped ownership groups the NBA allowed to operate. The league had decided team owner George Shinn was the problem when the team was operating in both Charlotte and New Orleans. The league feared Shinn would damage the OKC market if they allowed him to stay after the Katrina era, and made him return to New Orleans as quickly as possible.

As to how long before the Thunder would move...I'm guessing at least 5 years. The first issue is that the Thunder make money now. So, they need to find a market where they will make more money and factor in how soon it will become such.

Also, the NBA will not consider any move until a couple years after the league expands. They will not allow anything to interfere with their $3 billion (or up) expansion fee for the 2 proposed franchises.

Now...I have no illusion that we will ever know what a true arena cost is when we are relying on information from billionaires and politicians. I am thankful that OKC has mature enough people on both the team ownership and city leadership side to bypass the BS lies and get to the true deal.

Vote Yes for a Big League City!!!

Forgive me if this has been covered already - I certainly haven't been able to keep up with this monster thread.

But... why are we being pressured to vote on this now?

MAPS 4 Sales Tax expires 1-1-2029. Ostensibly, couldn't we wait a few years before voting? Or does it help the process in some way by having the vote in the rearview mirror?

Unlike MAPS debt would be used to build Arena as soon as possible before that money started being collected.

This is what I am having a hard time understanding from the "the owners can buy it themselves!" group. Personally, I want my city to own our arena.

100% exactly this.

I really don't understand them not getting the idea of the city buying the building, then you renegotiate the lease, rent, fee structure to plan an amortization schedule around the length of the lease. This is a pretty easy to figure out equation, the simplest of napkin math after 30 minutes of research in to existing fee and lease structure had me calculating amortization at fully paid for buy Thunder contract alone in 20 years, and that is based off of the current deal, you'd assume new arena means new lease, higher rate etc, not to mention more luxury suite sales, extended concessions, better parking (thunder pays the city for that too lol). If you think about how it will be paid for in a very short term cash deal via a MAPS style tax this means MASSIVE revenue that is usable to the city. Like, sure it will probably be cost neutral at best, but it WILL be putting money in to city coffers in a big way. I'd like clarification but am I correct in my reading of the last OKC annual report that revenue from Paycom Center is the largest input of cash from non tax sources that the city currently has?

OKC is not big enough to survive losing the Thunder. We don't have enough going for us, and the QOL rankings OKC has worked hard to improve to even average levels, will drop like the Titanic.

oh yeah man, my god this is PAINFULLY true, like, the pitch here is "the weather isn't as bad as you think, for all the guns we have it's not as violent as you think, the traffic is slow, and it's really cheap to live here considering it's big enough to have an NBA team" without that last part ... like what, the food is good if you like burgers? we have more trees than you'd think? you can buy wine in grocery stores now? Abortions are illegal and they teach that slavery wasn't that bad in schools but hey we have weed?

100% exactly this.

I really don't understand them not getting the idea of the city buying the building, then you renegotiate the lease, rent, fee structure to plan an amortization schedule around the length of the lease. This is a pretty easy to figure out equation, the simplest of napkin math after 30 minutes of research in to existing fee and lease structure had me calculating amortization at fully paid for buy Thunder contract alone in 20 years, and that is based off of the current deal, you'd assume new arena means new lease, higher rate etc, not to mention more luxury suite sales, extended concessions, better parking (thunder pays the city for that too lol). If you think about how it will be paid for in a very short term cash deal via a MAPS style tax this means MASSIVE revenue that is usable to the city. Like, sure it will probably be cost neutral at best, but it WILL be putting money in to city coffers in a big way. I'd like clarification but am I correct in my reading of the last OKC annual report that revenue from Paycom Center is the largest input of cash from non tax sources that the city currently has?

You’re reading the report incorrectly. The city’s interest in Paycom is cash flow negative just about every year and requires consistent subsidy from the city’s general fund.

I'm happy this is almost over.

One thing is for certain. Local sports radio will be less interesting if the Thunder leave.

Man the Thunder are kicking a** again tonight and are number two in the west in their third year of a rebuild. It would sure be a shame if JoBeth and her band of NERDS ruin it for us!

Made a poll for anyone who would like to weigh in. It's anonymous lol.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47942

JoBeth should be stuffed into a locker. Name one thing a lib white woman activist has actually improved.

JoBeth should be stuffed into a locker. Name one thing a lib white woman activist has actually improved.

My blood pressure if the goal was to score higher.

I'm happy this is almost over.

One thing is for certain. Local sports radio will be less interesting if the Thunder leave.

Just in time for presidential election season where 3/4 of posts will have political undertones despite the politics forum being closed! LOL

[/B]

YouÂ’re reading the report incorrectly. The cityÂ’s interest in Paycom is cash flow negative just about every year and requires consistent subsidy from the cityÂ’s general fund.

Paycom Center can be the city's biggest asset generator of revenue and still need cash from the general fund to operate.

That also doesn't mean that any money from the general fund equates to a "subsidy" or negative position for the city, primarily because events at the Paycom Center generate sales tax and that's how the city's general fund is, well, funded.

So, whatever amount is paid from the general fund to operate the arena is funded, at least in part, by activity at Paycom Center.

That's just a matter of attribution.

Isn't it more than just the Thunder though. There are 365 days in a year Thunder only play 41 unless they make the playoffs. How many events other than the Thunder did Paycom host last year?

Isn't it more than just the Thunder though. There are 365 days in a year Thunder only play 41 unless they make the playoffs. How many events other than the Thunder did Paycom host last year?

324 Days of Billionaire Conferences that only billionaires can attend!!!

Isn't it more than just the Thunder though. There are 365 days in a year Thunder only play 41 unless they make the playoffs. How many events other than the Thunder did Paycom host last year?

I would think close to 80 or so. But, with a quality arena an better dock space, I can easily see an extra 20-25 or so. So maybe 100 a year. Plus, tours LOVE going to new arenas!

If the arena had a prospect of being a cash cow we wouldn't be having to vote to finance the vast majority of it. Small market equals small profits. We will get more events, but I wouldn't expect anything Earth shattering.

Isn't it more than just the Thunder though. There are 365 days in a year Thunder only play 41 unless they make the playoffs. How many events other than the Thunder did Paycom host last year?

Not enough to be profitable for the city.

JoBeth should be stuffed into a locker. Name one thing a lib white woman activist has actually improved.

Ignorance and irresponsible talk. Wanting violence against a woman because she thinks differently than you. What a weak and dangerous man proclamation.

Paycom Center can be the city's biggest asset generator of revenue and still need cash from the general fund to operate.

That also doesn't mean that any money from the general fund equates to a "subsidy" or negative position for the city, primarily because events at the Paycom Center generate sales tax and that's how the city's general fund is, well, funded.

So, whatever amount is paid from the general fund to operate the arena is funded, at least in part, by activity at Paycom Center.

That's just a matter of attribution.

The report provided to the City Council accounts for all the sales tax generated by the arena (actually the arena + convention center). It still operates at a loss.

Isn't it more than just the Thunder though. There are 365 days in a year Thunder only play 41 unless they make the playoffs. How many events other than the Thunder did Paycom host last year?

It's really way more than the Thunder.

It's essentially just about whether you think OKC is ready for a tier one arena venue in OKC over the next 30 years.

If you're a big fan of Payom Center as it is, and think it will be much more profitable for the city without an international brand as the anchor tenant, then, yeah, confidently vote NO.

The report provided to the City Council accounts for all the sales tax generated by the arena (actually the arena + convention center). It still operates at a loss.

All of them?

That's amazing!

We really shouldn't have an arena at all. The costs are too big!

Ignorance and irresponsible talk. Wanting violence against a woman because she thinks differently than you. What a weak and dangerous man proclamation.

How dare you assume GoPokes88's gender?!?

Not enough to be profitable for the city.
There’s just no way you can know that. How do you take into account all the spending people do. The amount of money NBA players spend in the city. The taxes collected from outsiders coming into to see a game.

There’s just no way you can know that. How do you take into account all the spending people do. The amount of money NBA players spend in the city. The taxes collected from outsiders coming into to see a game.

He knows that, but doesn't care. Profitability for the municipality for him is inconsequential.

There’s just no way you can know that. How do you take into account all the spending people do. The amount of money NBA players spend in the city. The taxes collected from outsiders coming into to see a game.

I was referring to this post that uses OKC‘s own numbers (http://https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=47184&p=1246133#post1246133) to show that the city operates the arena at a loss. If you have data that shows otherwise I would be happy to reconsider my position.

So glad the vote is today and we can quit reading the same arguments over and over and over and over and over …..

No kidding. I also find it laughable that we’re demanding that they essentially donate more money to something they’ll have no ownership of and, in all likelihood, will be paying rent similar to what other teams that don’t own their arenas do.

Would love for them to have thrown more down on this but I think the outrage would’ve happened whether they paid $50 or $150 million. The no people just generally are anti public funding for anything sports related or in JoBeth Hamas’s case, anything that doesn’t involve transit or buses. Just seems like a really dumb time to die on that hill.

To a degree you’re right here. But $100 million would have been an easier sell to a lot more folks. 10% sounds better than 5%.

There are people who are opposed to this that surprise me, people who support MAPS typically.

People like JoBeth would never support this ever under any circumstances. I am more concerned by reactions I am seeing from other people whom I would assume would easily understand the importance of this initiative to the city’s present and future status.

All of them?

That's amazing!

We really shouldn't have an arena at all. The costs are too big!

You said activity AT the Paycom center, which, yes, I would assume are 100% accounted for...Of course, you still have spending outside of the arena that is hard to gauge the impact.

18504

Today we have the opportunity to invest in ourselves once again. When this photo was taken in over 20 years ago you can see the bones of a city growing, the street realignment, the future home of Scissortail Park in the background just a collection of abandoned industrial buildings and vacant properties. The Crosstown Expressway still cutting through downtown acting as a physical and visual barrier to further development. Voters bought into a vision for what Oklahoma City could be if we came together and built big things. I already voted yes on Thursday, if you have not done so, please vote yes today. Not for the Thunder, not for concerts, but for us, for the future generations of Oklahoma City citizens who will look back just as we are now at this picture and say "WOW, I am so grateful they took a chance and believed they could accomplish big things."

You said activity AT the Paycom center, which, yes, I would assume are 100% accounted for...Of course, you still have spending outside of the arena that is hard to gauge the impact.

I think all the large investment groups that are in the 'entertainment sector' that can actually build arenas have much larger developments surrounding their arena.

A lot of the messaging on "the team will move" has been largely incorrect. Yes - the team would move. But under no circumstances would this ownership group be the ones moving them. It's simple, vote fails -> Ownership sells team -> Team moves.

A lot of the messaging on "the team will move" has been largely incorrect. Yes - the team would move. But under no circumstances would this ownership group be the ones moving them. It's simple, vote fails -> Ownership sells team -> Team moves.

True

There is still so much misinformation floating around. I'm seeing graphics on social media saying there will be a 6-year extension of the MAPS4 tax to raise $70M, and ANOTHER "new" sales tax to raise the other $780M. Whether you characterize it as an extension of the existing tax or a "new" tax to replace the expiring one, it is NOT both. I'm also seeing that $1200/resident figure thrown around as a fact without taking into account the sales tax paid by nonresidents at all. But the argument I see the most is that the mayor needs to go back to renegotiate and is purposefully giving us a bad deal. Even if you think this proposal hoses the people of OKC, why would the mayor WANT to stick his name and political legacy behind a bad deal if a better one were available? He has every incentive to want to be able to promote the best deal since he has personally advocated for heavily for the need for a new arena. There's only say many ways he can politely say we have no leverage and this is a "take it or leave it" deal without starting to sound insulting, but many people really don't seem to be picking up on that...

How long did it take OKC to poach the Thunder after The Starbucks guy sold it?

It will happen almost immediately because other suitor cities wouldn’t have to be vetted as strongly as OKC was.

Seattle already has a $1 billion arena with no tenant. The owners here would likely just sell to another ownership group and cash out.

I really hope people look at the big picture here and what damage a no vote would do to this city. I get why people don’t want to help out the billionaires and multimillionaires but our arena is substandard. OKC should have a better arena than Tulsa. It will be a nice amenity for concerts and events and we get to keep our red-hot NBA team.

Don’t overcomplicate this. It should be a no-brainer “Yes” vote.

I'm not overcomplicating anything. I'm unambiguously voting yes later today. I was literally just curious what the timeline looks like if we lose this one.

Excited to vote yes today and God willing someday getting to watch a game/concert in the new state of the art OKC arena.

JoBeth should be stuffed into a locker. Name one thing a lib white woman activist has actually improved.

JoBeth is doing what she believes is correct. I expect every citizen to do the same. The citizens of Ward 6 who voted see her value and you need to respect that fact. If you don't respect her on the council then back someone to run against her.

Ignorance and irresponsible talk. Wanting violence against a woman because she thinks differently than you. What a weak and dangerous man proclamation.

No need to white knight for JoBeth. She is a councilwoman and is more that capable of taking care of herself. If you like her positions then vote for her, he you don't like her positions then vote for her opponent.

What’s everyone final margin percentage prediction?

65-35 Yes

What’s everyone final margin percentage prediction?

56-44 Yes

Not enough to be profitable for the city.

Does it have to be profitable to be an asset to the city? Is public transit a profit center? City parks?

No, but I want them because those are attributes of a modern, well developed, aspirational city. The arena is a public facility much like the downtown Metropolitan Library - it does not need to generate a profit to be considered a positive for the city. They all contribute to making OKC a desirable place to live, visit, and work.

I hope it passes - I no longer get to vote in OKC since I moved. But had this come up earlier this year, I would have been a solid yes.

The report provided to the City Council accounts for all the sales tax generated by the arena (actually the arena + convention center). It still operates at a loss.

not correct

What’s everyone final margin percentage prediction?

53.8% yes
46.2% no

7.6 differential which is the current Thunder point differential per game average. TTFU.

What’s everyone final margin percentage prediction?

54-46 yes

62% Yes

38% No

54-46 yes

This would be my hope, I think it will be slimmer than it should, 55/45ish, but I think it will pass.

I hope the mayor and the chamber are learning a lesson tho that their messaging ahead of things like this needs to be A LOT BETTER. MAKE THE CASE dummies, or your opponents will make it first.

Also, Chamber should have advised owners to chip in 10 points, hell could have even paid them back, still would have looked a hell of a lot better.