He, personally, owns 20 percent. At least he's listed in the owners group personally. Not the company.
Either way I don't get Mike's argument. If McClendon and the board of directors use company (shareholder) money to name the arena, and that generates quite a bit of additional, nationwide, advertising it a good thing for Chesapeake. The naming isn't likely to increase the teams, and therefor, McClendon's personal income from a "moonlighting project". Having televised games, some nationally, broadcast from "The Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City" is good for the company and doesn't change McClendon's position much if at all.
No matter what the issue is there's always some group that look for a conspiracy.
Bookmarks