New Downtown Arena

[Teo9969]

this hasn't happened anywhere ...

Sports franchises move cities all the time. What are you talking about?

[chssooner]

Sports franchises move cities all the time. What are you talking about?

They do? Maybe like, 10 total in 20 years. Or less.

[PoliSciGuy]

They do? Maybe like, 10 total in 20 years. Or less.

That's certainly a lot more than what BoulderSooner claimed that it "hasn't happened anywhere"

[Richard at Remax]

Doesn't sound like anyone should expect to see renderings prior to the vote...

https://twitter.com/davidfholt/statu...61YyoCXUQ&s=19

It's not lost on me that in the background there is a streetcar going, Paycom in the background, all while doing the interview in scissortail park. all paid for by the citizens by this same tax they are extending.

[Anonymous.]

Look. No one is saying that the [non] public process is a good one. No one is saying that the team owners don't have the city by the balls. The fact of the matter is, that OKC needs the Thunder. The risk [of the team moving] is not worth the reward.

The hill to die on for changing the 1% controlling nearly every aspect of life is not the new arena in OKC.

If you love OKC, regardless of NBA fandom, you should vote yes.

[Bill Robertson]

Look. No one is saying that the [non] public process is a good one. No one is saying that the team owners don't have the city by the balls. The fact of the matter is, that OKC needs the Thunder. The risk [of the team moving] is not worth the reward.

The hill to die on for changing the 1% controlling nearly every aspect of life is not the new arena in OKC.

If you love OKC, regardless of NBA fandom, you should vote yes.

I agree. Especially with the last sentence. I don't like basketball. I got somewhat wrapped up in the bandwagon the first 4 or 5 years but then my dislike for basketball took over again. I'm still going to vote yes. I believe there are advantages for OKC to continually make improvements that are seen by the rest of the country. And this will be talked about in other NBA cities that will start comparing their arenas to our new arena.

[chssooner]

That's certainly a lot more than what BoulderSooner claimed that it "hasn't happened anywhere"

The response said "all the time". Phrasing is important. Hyperbole for effect usually has a negative impact.

[Laramie]

[Teo9969]

The response said "all the time". Phrasing is important. Hyperbole for effect usually has a negative impact.

Allow me to rephrase:

Professional Team relocations happen often enough that if the Thunder are sold to an out of state ownership group, we should be acutely aware of the possibility that the team gets moved even if we build this arena. If we have a new arena with no team, we will have set our city back by a decade.

[chssooner]

Allow me to rephrase:

Professional Team relocations happen often enough that if the Thunder are sold to an out of state ownership group, we should be acutely aware of the possibility that the team gets moved even if we build this arena. If we have a new arena with no team, we will have set our city back by a decade.

But the new arena is contingent on a signed, binding lease for 25 or so years. If they sell, and the owners break the lease, it's still binding, even under new ownership. OKC would get a certain amount for breach of contract (and I'm not just talking the remaining lease amount). Hence why he mentioned it when he put out the release. That lease is a tool to keep the arena with a minimum of 41 dates a year, each generating a significant amount of revenue around downtown, as well (hotels, restaurants, etc.).

[BoulderSooner]

Sports franchises move cities all the time. What are you talking about?

a team getting out of a 25 year lease to move

[BoulderSooner]

That's certainly a lot more than what BoulderSooner claimed that it "hasn't happened anywhere"

i was speaking to getting out of a 25 year lease to move a team .. that doesn't happen .. teams move yes at the end of leases ..

[PoliSciGuy]

i was speaking to getting out of a 25 year lease to move a team .. that doesn't happen .. teams move yes at the end of leases ..

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

[Shortsyeararound]

Speaking of Holt- this is awesome. You don't get on this list thinking small. Okc can continue to ascend to the top tier. Keep it up!!!! Vote yes!!

https://kfor.com/news/local/oklahoma...ential-people/

[chssooner]

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

By paying far more than the actual lease amount. That is rare. Billionaires don't become that way by paying more than they have to, for the most part.

[BDP]

Yeah, that's why the details do matter and it's a bummer we won't know what those terms are before we vote.

It would be interesting to know how much the rent is, what other revenue will they participate in, and how painful would breaking the lease be for them or anyone they sold the team to.

Admittedly, I don't think most voters are going to consider that or care, but clearly they do consider the raw numbers at face value and everyone has a different idea of what a "significant contribution" is.

[PoliSciGuy]

By paying far more than the actual lease amount. That is rare. Billionaires don't become that way by paying more than they have to, for the most part.

As the trifling sum the ownership group is putting into this project clearly shows

[Laramie]

This ownership group literally broke the lease early in Seattle to move here.

Seattle accepted $45 million in 2008 for OKC to break the lease; $350 million for the franchise = $395 million.

[Teo9969]

By paying far more than the actual lease amount. That is rare. Billionaires don't become that way by paying more than they have to, for the most part.

No...billionaires don't stay billionaires by tying their money up in contracts they can't get out of at a reasonable cost. If you think owners are going to sign a poison pill lease that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to break, you have an equal misconception of billionaires. That's what sports franchises managers do that get them fired by the billionaires.

[BDP]

No, other NBA stadiums are more expensive or similar to this, but they all cost much less in terms of public outlays because ownership is covering a much larger chunk. It's not just inflation.

In the deals that you site to compare tenant participation in construction of the venue, is there a relationship between how much is contributed and how much revenue participation the tenant(s) receive.

That is, it's easy to compare the front end contribution, but what are the differences in back end compensation?

Obviously, any deal where the the financing is entirely private, those investors will own and operate the venue, but in deals where there's public / private investment splits, what do the revenue splits look like and how do they compare?

[onthestrip]

Yeah, that's why the details do matter and it's a bummer we won't know what those terms are before we vote.

It would be interesting to know how much the rent is, what other revenue will they participate in, and how painful would breaking the lease be for them or anyone they sold the team to.

Admittedly, I don't think most voters are going to consider that or care, but clearly they do consider the raw numbers at face value and everyone has a different idea of what a "significant contribution" is.

This. There has to be more transparency on things like this. I think someone mentioned the naming rights too, who gets that is worth knowing as well.

[Teo9969]

With $1.25B tax dollars coming to this arena, over the 25 term lease, that comes out to $50M per year. They are not doing a $10M+/year lease. Most teams are only paying a few million per year.

https://inf.news/en/sport/f8159488d7...e94ef6394.html

[BDP]

With $1.25B tax dollars coming to this arena, over the 25 term lease, that comes out to $50M per year. They are not doing a $10M+/year lease. Most teams are only paying a few million per year.

https://inf.news/en/sport/f8159488d7...e94ef6394.html

No team uses an arena 365 days a year.

I think they pay around $1.6 MM / year in rent now. Should that go up or down with an initial $50MM contribustion?

[Pete]

No team uses an arena 365 days a year.

I think they pay around $1.6 MM / year in rent now. Should that go up or down with an initial $50MM contribustion?

It's not just rent... It's the concessions, suite revenue, and a ton of other things.

I simply can't believe that on net, this is going to end up costing the Thunder much (if any) more than the current deal. They were the ones insisting on a new arena, after all. They didn't do that to make less profit -- otherwise, why would they want it?

Also, remember the Thunder owners were also the ones behind the proposed Thunder Alley development with outside bars and restaurants. I would be surprised if something like that wasn't included and that the ownership gets rights to it, or at least a portion.

[BDP]

It's not just rent... It's the concessions, suite revenue, and a ton of other things.

I simply can't believe that on net, this is going to end up costing the Thunder much (if any) more than the current deal. They were the ones insisting on a new arena, after all. They didn't do that to make less profit.

RIght. They get a piece of of those things during their events. I think most of it is tiered, but does not go above 50%. I think the only splits they receive outside of Thunder events is 25% or so of luxury revenue.

So, they pay rent and also create 40-45 nights of guaranteed revenue (though not a guaranteed amount).

I'm just trying to figure out that if they contribute more to the arena, should their end of the splits go up / pay less rent? Should they get more of non-thunder revenue in that case?

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonizing or blindly defending the Thunder's deal. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of these deals and how they compare beyond just the up front numbers.