New Downtown Arena

[brunnesa]

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.

Like I said before, it will just make these rich people richer on the backs of the taxpayers. I am voting NO, and so is everyone else I know that lives in OKC. Hopefully, this will not pass and the ownership group funds their own arena 100% or the Thunder move to another city.

[Pete]

Let's put it this way, based on the way absolutely everything else has been handled regarding the Thunder, there is ample reason to believe that OKC will not get a fair market deal (i.e. comparable to peer cities) when it comes to the contract with the Thunder.

The owners didn't contribute anything before because the arena was already built. Then the City (or I should say taxpayers) have paid for 100% of everything else, including a ton of continuous upgrades and the practice facility including upgrades there.

And until someone else can prove otherwise, the owners are now set to contribute way, way less (as in hundreds of millions) than in any other semi-recent arena deal. And here's all the official press release from the City has to say about this, something Holt keeps repeating: "The $50 million contribution committed by the owners of the Oklahoma City Thunder to the new arena is a first in City history."

[chssooner]

Like I said before, it will just make these rich people richer on the backs of the taxpayers. I am voting NO, and so is everyone else I know that lives in OKC. Hopefully, this will not pass and the ownership group funds their own arena 100% or the Thunder move to another city.

If the Thunder leave, then this city will suffer MAJORLY. No more Big League City, no more momentum, downtown will stagnate, and it will cripple OKC's image, in the eyes of the country. Glad that doesn't matter for you. But it does to me, and I'm voting yes. Tired of people minimizing thr impact of the Thunder. OKC will never, ever get another pro team if they do leave. Mark my words. OKC will be the real loser if the Thunder leave.

[Pete]

If the Thunder leave, then this city will suffer MAJORLY. No more Big League City, no more momentum, downtown will stagnate, and it will cripple OKC's image, in the eyes of the country. Glad that doesn't matter for you. But it does to me, and I'm voting yes. Tired of people minimizing thr impact of the Thunder. OKC will never, ever get another pro team if they do leave. Mark my words. OKC will be the real loser if the Thunder leave.

Enough with the fear-mongering. As people keep saying, this isn't a binary proposition.

You really think Holt would let the Thunder leave? His entire political future and reputation would be destroyed.

There are many examples of teams and municipalities that go back and forth several times in negotiations. Are we so pathetic we have to just take whatever scraps they throw us, a deal hugely disproportionate to any other NBA arena?

This City's inferiority complex can be staggering.

[Rover]

They would have plenty of time to work out a deal and I don't believe for a minute they would just throw up their hands and sell.

Best case, the new arena wouldn't be open until around 2030. Assuming 2 years for construction, that allows for almost five years until work would need to start.

This reads very much like Seattle's response. Pete, you are a bright, bright man with a long record of being right. But I think that if it passes it calls into question the long term status of OKC as a big time player. We have no other major teams or world class events or venue's that would say to the world that we do things the right way. You should know that the Thunder negotiating with 1.5 million cititzens isn't the way to get progress in this city. That is the road to a very poor least common denominator.

[BoulderSooner]

Like I said before, it will just make these rich people richer on the backs of the taxpayers. I am voting NO, and so is everyone else I know that lives in OKC. Hopefully, this will not pass and the ownership group funds their own arena 100% or the Thunder move to another city.

lol that is laughable ..

if "being richer" was driving them they would move the team to a bigger city ..

[Rover]

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?

I believe the Milwaukee owner investment oft quoted here is paid out at the rate over 20 years is it not? The level of support and committment is really yet unknown here until a final agreement is forged. And if you are going to compare it to what others do in other cities, compare it to the market income potential, lease terms, committment terms, total value, etc.

[Pete]

This reads very much like Seattle's response. Pete, you are a bright, bright man with a long record of being right. But I think that if it passes it calls into question the long term status of OKC as a big time player. We have no other major teams or world class events or venue's that would say to the world that we do things the right way. You should know that the Thunder negotiating with 1.5 million cititzens isn't the way to get progress in this city. That is the road to a very poor least common denominator.

As has been documented, the ownership was never going to stay in Seattle and Aubrey was fined by the NBA for saying exactly that.

The two situations are not remotely similar.


Are you saying OKC should take a deal that is way off the charts worse than any other NBA city? Every single owner makes the same threat to move and yet somehow OKC should not get a deal in the same universe as everyone else?

[AnguisHerba]

I'm honestly kind of shocked Holt did not attempt to throw in some type of public benefit capital investment with this. Why not make this arena + transit + recreation? This proposed six year sales tax extension will presumably raise $780 million ($900-$70-$50) for the arena development. That's $130M per year. Why not just pitch it as an 8 or 10 year extension and commit to throwing the extra $130M per year toward a better transit, parks, and rec system? That would take the edge off a lot of the "no" voters and you don't even need the Thunder ownership to agree to it because it has nothing to do with them.

[BoulderSooner]

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

no the actually didn't they settled with seattle to be able to leave 2 years early ..

a judge literally ruled that they could not be released from its lease with Keyarena early ..

[BoulderSooner]

As has been documented, the ownership was never going to stay in Seattle and Aubrey was fined by the NBA for saying exactly that.

The two situations are not remotely similar.

and again you can read the deposition .. if seattle had built a new arena they were 100% going to stay in seattle ..

[Pete]

and again you can read the deposition .. if seattle had built a new arena they were 100% going to stay in seattle ..

We've already established you may be the only one on the planet who thinks the ownership group negotiated in good faith, and I seriously doubt even you believe it to be true.

[April in the Plaza]

If the Thunder leave, then this city will suffer MAJORLY. No more Big League City, no more momentum, downtown will stagnate, and it will cripple OKC's image, in the eyes of the country. Glad that doesn't matter for you. But it does to me, and I'm voting yes. Tired of people minimizing thr impact of the Thunder. OKC will never, ever get another pro team if they do leave. Mark my words. OKC will be the real loser if the Thunder leave.

Wouldn’t an actual Big League City have sufficient leverage to secure terms that are comparable to its peer cities?

[Anonymous.]

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Imagine a record-breaking hurricane hits a coastal city with no extra arena to house their team. Forcing them to scramble and find a home for the season.
Imagine at the same time, a revitalized city sitting there with open arms with a new NBA-ready arena ready to go with no anchor tenant.
Imagine at this same time, a different NBA city is having arena/ownership problems and that same ownership group has ties to that same city above.

The insane circumstances that led to OKC landing the NBA is actually just that, insane. It seems made up for a movie.

Now imagine losing that team over less than 100 million dollars to do what? Stick it to the rich billionaires who have seen the value of the team 6X since purchase?!

[Pete]

^

At least 50% seems to be the market number (100% is not uncommon), which means at least $500MM, which is 10x what they are offering.

[AnguisHerba]

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Imagine a record-breaking hurricane hits a coastal city with no extra arena to house their team. Forcing them to scramble and find a home for the season.
Imagine at the same time, a revitalized city sitting there with open arms with a new NBA-ready arena ready to go with no anchor tenant.
Imagine at this same time, a different NBA city is having arena/ownership problems and that same ownership group has ties to that same city above.

The insane circumstances that led to OKC landing the NBA is actually just that, insane. It seems made up for a movie.

Now imagine losing that team over less than 100 million dollars to do what? Stick it to the rich billionaires who have seen the value of the team 6X since purchase?!

I agree with you. To me, the ownership contribution is kind of irrelevant. The bigger mistake is making this just an arena proposal instead of pairing it with other public benefit investments.

[BoulderSooner]

Let's put it this way, based on the way absolutely everything else has been handled regarding the Thunder, there is ample reason to believe that OKC will not get a fair market deal (i.e. comparable to peer cities) when it comes to the contract with the Thunder.

The owners didn't contribute anything before because the arena was already built. Then the City (or I should say taxpayers) have paid for 100% of everything else, including a ton of continuous upgrades and the practice facility including upgrades there.

And until someone else can prove otherwise, the owners are now set to contribute way, way less (as in hundreds of millions) than in any other semi-recent arena deal. And here's all the official press release from the City has to say about this, something Holt keeps repeating: "The $50 million contribution committed by the owners of the Oklahoma City Thunder to the new arena is a first in City history."

Milwaukee the most relevant comparison is a very differetnt situation for a couple of reasons ..

1. the selling owner wanted to make sure the team stayed in Wisconsin so much so that he required the purchasing owners to contribute toward the new arena (if they had said no he would have found someone else to buy the team) .. he also personally contributed 100 mil to the arena (as he was heading out the door) ie he as a private citizen non owner of the team gave 100 mil to the buildings ..

and then the state of Wisconsin gave 40% of the money for the building ..

[Teo9969]

Honestly the ownership could put up 0% and we still need to accept this. What is the magic number? I see posts in here saying 10%, 50%, 100%? When the estimated price tag of the arena was around $750MM, 10% would be $75MM. SO you want to die on a hill for $25MM?

Imagine a record-breaking hurricane hits a coastal city with no extra arena to house their team. Forcing them to scramble and find a home for the season.
Imagine at the same time, a revitalized city sitting there with open arms with a new NBA-ready arena ready to go with no anchor tenant.
Imagine at this same time, a different NBA city is having arena/ownership problems and that same ownership group has ties to that same city above.

The insane circumstances that led to OKC landing the NBA is actually just that, insane. It seems made up for a movie.

Now imagine losing that team over less than 100 million dollars to do what? Stick it to the rich billionaires who have seen the value of the team 6X since purchase?!

No, in your example it's not about $25MM, it's about $750MM. The city could do an enormous amount of work with $750M. Every $25M we get "for free" from the owners has an exponential effect because those types of numbers give us opportunities to do other wonderful things for the community.

There will be a public element to this, there almost has to be at the price point we're talking... Unfortunately, there's a great degree of hubris to think that we should just accept it on faith vs. having a real plan in place. In comparison to MAPS, what we've been given so far is a joke.

[PokeFromOk]

Enough with the fear-mongering. As people keep saying, this isn't a binary proposition.

You really think Holt would let the Thunder leave? His entire political future and reputation would be destroyed.

There are many examples of teams and municipalities that go back and forth several times in negotiations. Are we so pathetic we have to just take whatever scraps they throw us, a deal hugely disproportionate to any other NBA arena?

This City's inferiority complex can be staggering.

Just because you keep repeating that the decision isn't binary doesn't mean it is or isn't. And Holt has zero control on whether the Thunder leave or not. There is a lease with the city that runs out in 2026, after that the team has no legal obligation to stay in OKC and the owners (financially) and organization (bigger market equals better chance at free agents) would be massively incentivized to move elsewhere.

[BoulderSooner]

Wouldn’t an actual Big League City have sufficient leverage to secure terms that are comparable to its peer cities?

memphis ownership spent 0.00% on their arena and i don't believe they are spending any on the 350+ mil renovation

[BoulderSooner]

I am not a thunder fan ... but over 25 years the Thunder in USA and world wide PR alone bring well over 750mil in value ..

and then there is the actual value they bring to OKC which is also huge ..

[Jake]

They may be barely giving any money towards the stadium but they've painted Thunder logos on, like, at least 4 or 5 basketball courts in the city. I'd say they've given enough.

[Swake]

The fact of the matter is that OKC is the third smallest NBA market and the team finished dead last in attendance last year.

If you want the team to stay in Oklahoma City, you are going to have to pay. It's not a great deal, but it is the deal you have and should take it.

[BoulderSooner]

Milwaukee the most relevant comparison is a very differetnt situation for a couple of reasons ..

1. the selling owner wanted to make sure the team stayed in Wisconsin so much so that he required the purchasing owners to contribute toward the new arena (if they had said no he would have found someone else to buy the team) .. he also personally contributed 100 mil to the arena (as he was heading out the door) ie he as a private citizen non owner of the team gave 100 mil to the buildings ..

and then the state of Wisconsin gave 40% of the money for the building ..

also the BUCKS team is the operator of the entire arena ... as in they get all the money from concerts and other events ... and only pay the city 1 mil a year (increased based on inflation)

[BoulderSooner]

that is a KEY difference in how we operate and some of the other examples given ..