New Downtown Arena

[Rover]

I’ve handled hundreds of negotiations of all sizes in many countries. One classic mistake people make is misunderstanding their counterpart because they think they SHOULD do something rather than assessing what they WILL do. Understanding the opposition’s options and their willingness to act on them is essential. We trust our leaders have done so and are highly sensitive to the odds of various actions while trying to advance the public’s interest as much as possible.

[Jersey Boss]

Then SIMPLE truth is they may have various reasons they want to vote no, but the results of failure is the likely relocation of the team if a deal can’t be done. It’s unlikely to be a protracted process of vote, restructure, vote, restructure, rinse and repeat. The deal won’t be negotiated by all the citizens, but by their representatives. And now, their representatives are saying they believe this to be the appropriate deal.

Who represented the voters in the negotiations with the ownership group, outside of Holt?
Were council members also involved? Is this public information?

[April in the Plaza]

I’ve handled hundreds of negotiations of all sizes in many countries. One classic mistake people make is misunderstanding their counterpart because they think they SHOULD do something rather than assessing what they WILL do. Understanding the opposition’s options and their willingness to act on them is essential. We trust our leaders have done so and are highly sensitive to the odds of various actions while trying to advance the public’s interest as much as possible.

It’s actually rather difficult to move an Nba team to a different MSA. The league’s relocation committee will, generally speaking, force the new ownership group to hammer out an arena deal with the existing MSA. Which, tends to make some sense given that relocations are terrible for league wide economics.



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

A year later, Ballmer explored purchasing a team again after retiring from Microsoft, but still desired to move a team to Seattle.

At this point, David Stern had already passed the mantle of NBA Commissioner over to Adam Silver, and Ballmer said that Silver told him that the league did not want to move teams away from their cities anymore specifically because of what happened with the Supersonics.

https://www.thestreet.com/sports/ste...onics-move-nba


The NBA relocation committee recommended Monday that Seattle's bid to buy the Kings and relocate them to the city that lost the Sonics in 2008 should be denied. A full vote of the league's owners won't take place until May 13, but this is expected to set the tone for the final outcome. [...]

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...313.html?a20=1

[citywokchinesefood]

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

You can vote no for a lack of transparency. That is your prerogative. If this fails the team is gone, and the city is going to hit a major snag.

[PhiAlpha]

What an incredibly over-simplistic and condescending way to describe the opposition. There are lots of reasons to vote no that don’t even involve the Thunder. Folks can vote no because it’s the single largest outlay of public funds for an NBA/NHL arena. Folks can vote no because they think that money can be better used elsewhere. Folks can vote no because of the lack of transparency on numerous aspects of the deal. Claiming that folks are only voting no to kick out the team misses the point entirely, which is odd because that point has been made dozens of time now in this thread for those who have read it.

And yet it doesn’t change the stupidity of that decision. Congrats though…you can yell “vote no!” all you want from the sidelines. Hope it fulfills you LOL. #FakeThunderFan

[Rover]

Who represented the voters in the negotiations with the ownership group, outside of Holt?
Were council members also involved? Is this public information?

Most negotiations are not done publicly and there are many good and right reasons for this.

And yes, we hire our representatives through voting for them. Then, on substantial issues like this, we ratify or deny their recommendations. In the end, if you don’t like Holt’s leadership and quality of his guidance, vote him out.

The city council doesn’t as a whole negotiate every recommendation. Group negotiations generally conclude with the least common denominator proposals, not leadership quality decisions. Btw, any of the council members could have gone to the Thunder and asked to visit with them. I doubt most had the gravitas to effectively do that though.

[Urbanized]

The mayor would of course be involved (and he’s publicly said as much), but the designated lead on negotiations of this type would generally be the city manager, along with staff from his office and representatives from City Legal. I suspect due to the gravity of this deal that the mayor had more direct involvement than is typical of most negotiations at the City.

For folks who don’t know this, Oklahoma City operates under what is termed a strong city manager form of government vs a strong mayor. This means the city manager is essentially the CEO of the City. He serves at the pleasure of the (elected) mayor and (elected) council, of course, much as the CEO of a corporation answers to a board of directors.

The mayor often points out publicly that he is but one vote on the horseshoe (which also has eight council members representing OKC’s 8 wards), although clearly he wields the power of (essentially) a board chair, and clearly takes the lead when it comes to discussions at the council level and in communicating on behalf of the City as a whole.

But by design the city manager is typically where the rubber meets the road, and is the person who directs departments and ultimately the efforts of City staff.

In the case of this negotiation there was surely a team on both sides, with the mayor, city manager and other City staff working on behalf of taxpayers, just as they were elected, appointed or hired to do (depending upon the role).

[SouthOKC]

The mayor would of course be involved (and he’s publicly said as much), but the designated lead on negotiations of this type would generally be the city manager, along with staff from his office and representatives from City Legal. I suspect due to the gravity of this deal that the mayor had more direct involvement than is typical of most negotiations at the City.

For folks who don’t know this, Oklahoma City operates under what is termed a strong city manager form of government vs a strong mayor. This means the city manager is essentially the CEO of the City. He serves at the pleasure of the (elected) mayor and (elected) council, of course, much as the CEO of a corporation answers to a board of directors.

The mayor often points out publicly that he is but one vote on the horseshoe (which also has eight council members representing OKC’s 8 wards), although clearly he wields the power of (essentially) a board chair, and clearly takes the lead when it comes to discussions at the council level and in communicating on behalf of the City as a whole.

But by design the city manager is typically where the rubber meets the road, and is the person who directs departments and ultimately the efforts of City staff.

In the case of this negotiation there was surely a team on both sides, with the mayor, city manager and other City staff working on behalf of taxpayers, just as they were elected, appointed or hired to do (depending upon the role).

What negotiations? Lol

They got 5% from the ownership group….

Then told the public we better fund it or risk losing the team. At the same time trying to tell us to trust their non-transparent process that previously left us with an arena that has loading docks that can’t handle back to back concerts.

The city has zero leverage and the ownership group knows that and this deal reflects it.

By the way… how’d they pay for the survey that went out? Shouldn’t there be a process to appropriate funds? I mean we don’t want wreckless government spending…

[April in the Plaza]

What negotiations? Lol

They got 5% from the ownership group….

Then told the public we better fund it or risk losing the team. At the same time trying to tell us to trust their non-transparent process that previously left us with an arena that has loading docks that can’t handle back to back concerts.

The city has zero leverage and the ownership group knows that and this deal reflects it.

By the way… how’d they pay for the survey that went out? Shouldn’t there be a process to appropriate funds? I mean we don’t want wreckless government spending…

I think the survey and internal polling is paid for by The Chamber.

[SouthOKC]

I think the survey and internal polling is paid for by The Chamber.

That can’t be possible! Now I’m totally confused.

There is no way any arena related expenses can be paid for before the vote. It would be poor stewardship of public trust and funds to appropriate any arena related expenses before the vote. There just isn’t any method to expense spec work before a vote. Not possible.

[Urbanized]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Funding for design and other work for a City-owned facility is subject to legal limitations. Polling by interested third parties is not. Mock me all you want; I’m trying to help folks understand the way this has to work from a municipal government standpoint.

[Teo9969]

Incredible irony here regarding simplistic and condescending reductions, and once again, completely wrong in your assessment.

I’m not at all diminishing the reasons someone might WANT to vote “no.” What I’m saying is that an informed no vote must also accept that the team WILL leave as a consequence. Anyone who wants the team to stay but thinks they can vote no as a method of sending a message, or somehow reshaping the negotiation; if they believe there will be “do-overs” or another chance to get this done, they’re gravely mistaken.

Why is the ownership group not coming out and stating this much? The "positive-spin" campaign has clearly fostered more fear than positivity amongst voters and in the media. I mean, maybe they've already accepted an offer for the team.and put a contingency in that they get a chance to work with the city to bring about a new arena...I don't know, but at this point, the ownership group needs to be the entity making sure we're aware that this is a do or die vote. As of today, they do not appear to believe that.

[PhiAlpha]

Why is the ownership group not coming out and stating this much? The "positive-spin" campaign has clearly fostered more fear than positivity amongst voters and in the media. I mean, maybe they've already accepted an offer for the team.and put a contingency in that they get a chance to work with the city to bring about a new arena...I don't know, but at this point, the ownership group needs to be the entity making sure we're aware that this is a do or die vote. As of today, they do not appear to believe that.

Given how quiet the city has been on it, I don’t think it’s that surprising that the team hasn’t said anything yet. I would be willing to be that they get more involved when a formal campaign starts.

[BoulderSooner]

If the arena effort did not pass, I believe that the $70 million could theoretically be restored to Paycom funding, though what a bitter pill THAT would be.

it could be spent on any capital project that the council wanted ..

[PhiAlpha]

That can’t be possible! Now I’m totally confused.

There is no way any arena related expenses can be paid for before the vote. It would be poor stewardship of public trust and funds to appropriate any arena related expenses before the vote. There just isn’t any method to expense spec work before a vote. Not possible.

Yeah, no need to be a dick. Urbanized is one of the few posters here with real insight into how the city does this stuff, I appreciate that he continues to post about it.

[Laramie]

Where on God's green earth did the $900 million figure evolve.

Surely it's got to come from somewhere like arena specifications and site acquisition and preparation.

[SouthOKC]

Yeah, no need to be a dick. Urbanized is one of the few posters here with real insight into how the city does this stuff, I appreciate that he continues to post about it.

Im not sure you should be the one telling others how to behave.

There’s a issue when people speak so matter of fact and attempt to dissuade others under the guise of educating them. You’re ok with his posts because it’s in agreement with your narrative anyone else you’ve personally attacked.

There is a issue with transparency here and public discussion is how it’s addressed. The entire approach is flawed if we have a either or vote in front of us. $900M blank check or the Thunder leave. The city and mayor might’ve failed in their strategy of using the popularity of MAPS to try and shroud the behind the scenes negotiations/discussions. This isn’t a MAPS project and the marketing is creating confusion.

His fundamental point is it has to be handled this way due to the civic responsibilities and obligations. My view is we’re intentionally restricting access to behind the scenes information based on a belief there is a greater likelihood it passes. Along with the approach/strategy for carrying out the vote. However, the public deserves more on a vote of this magnitude.

[HOT ROD]

Why is the ownership group not coming out and stating this much? The "positive-spin" campaign has clearly fostered more fear than positivity amongst voters and in the media. I mean, maybe they've already accepted an offer for the team.and put a contingency in that they get a chance to work with the city to bring about a new arena...I don't know, but at this point, the ownership group needs to be the entity making sure we're aware that this is a do or die vote. As of today, they do not appear to believe that.

Very good point and question. Thinking back to the Seattle debacle, Clay Bennett DID get out there and tried to get support for an arena (multiple times/locations - Seattle then KeyArena, Renton Arena, Bellevue Arena - all had renderings and price points/locations made to the public), including having renderings yet was shot down by the elitism up here; irregardless of A McLendon's desire (and likely the ownership group's all along) to have a team in OKC. They did try to get one here and were transparent about it.

Why he's not doing anything in OKC is beyond me. Furthermore, it is ONLY the mayor of Oklahoma City who said the city might lose the team if the vote didnt pass. Bennett and Co didn't say anything indicating as much. Again, why are the Thunder not saying/doing anything is beyond me. And furthermore, why the Chamber isn't doing anything to ensure passage (like conceptual renderings, announcing the location to justify urgency) is beyond me.

This whole thing, thinking, approach on this is beyond me. Yes, I want OKC to have a new arena that competes if not excels all other NBA arenas. I know this will be multi billion to do so, but should create a Thunder Alley district, ala LA Live. But why not say this, Thunder/Chamber? Why leaving it up to the mayor of OKC to try to scare everybody into voting yes, when voters really don't know what they're approving. ... Again, every other city had at least conceptual renderings before a vote, particularly billion $$.. (and let me chime in again before Urbanized - the TEAM or CHAMBER could produce at least conceptual renderings of what the Oklahoma City arena and district could be; that wouldn't violate the city's fiduciary obligation not to spend dollars promoting this - that's why we have a chamber).

I don't get it. They could do more to ensure the vote is a smashing YES. But they're almost seem to encourage the NO to be more than just the people who always vote No.

[HOT ROD]

EXACTLY Larry. How did they come up with minimum $900m? In my opinion, an arena in OKC, even a lavish one, should cost less than $500m. So is the $900m+ because

1) it will be located at the Myriad superblock? which means the myriad needs to be torn down and (since the superblock site is way bigger than even the biggest arena) the rest of the site will be developed into a Thunder Alley (LA Live type district)?

and

2) because of it's location, construction needs to start almost immediately since the current building needs to be removed?

and

3) this new arena will belong to OKC and will be built large enough to be reconfigured without the city having to build a new building again? And the building will have larger/multiple loading docks incorporated so the arena can be functional similar to LA's with back-to-back events?

therefore with all of this in mind, we arrived at $1.25 billion consisting of a team contribution of $50m to cover interest payments, $75m withheld from MAPS IV, and $900m for a 6 year extension of the 1 cent tax starting when MAPS IV ends.

If they would state these, Im sure the YES vote will go up from probably 51% today to 89%. Why not go for it, put the doubters, sharks from other cities, and nay-sayers to rest. Go BIG and prove to the world that OKC is a major player (might enhance that Olympic push)? Why be so quiet with this, now less than 1.5 months to the vote? I don't get it, nor do I get how they "negotiated" $900m.

[DoctorTaco]

Very good point and question. Thinking back to the Seattle debacle, Clay Bennett DID get out there and tried to get support for an arena (multiple times/locations - Seattle then KeyArena, Renton Arena, Bellevue Arena - all had renderings and price points/locations made to the public), including having renderings yet was shot down by the elitism up here; irregardless of A McLendon's desire (and likely the ownership group's all along) to have a team in OKC. They did try to get one here and were transparent about it.

Why he's not doing anything in OKC is beyond me. Furthermore, it is ONLY the mayor of Oklahoma City who said the city might lose the team if the vote didnt pass. Bennett and Co didn't say anything indicating as much. Again, why are the Thunder not saying/doing anything is beyond me. And furthermore, why the Chamber isn't doing anything to ensure passage (like conceptual renderings, announcing the location to justify urgency) is beyond me.

This whole thing, thinking, approach on this is beyond me. Yes, I want OKC to have a new arena that competes if not excels all other NBA arenas. I know this will be multi billion to do so, but should create a Thunder Alley district, ala LA Live. But why not say this, Thunder/Chamber? Why leaving it up to the mayor of OKC to try to scare everybody into voting yes, when voters really don't know what they're approving. ... Again, every other city had at least conceptual renderings before a vote, particularly billion $$.. (and let me chime in again before Urbanized - the TEAM or CHAMBER could produce at least conceptual renderings of what the Oklahoma City arena and district could be; that wouldn't violate the city's fiduciary obligation not to spend dollars promoting this - that's why we have a chamber).

I don't get it. They could do more to ensure the vote is a smashing YES. But they're almost seem to encourage the NO to be more than just the people who always vote No.

I share all of your thoughts.

This reminds me of when a popular incumbent has a challenger and they just decide not to debate. The candidate thinks they have more to lose by being upstaged on a debate platform than they gain, so they sit it out and win on name recognition.

Maybe the powerrs that be (Thunder/Chamber/Holt) have all decided that this is going to pass so no need to get people upset at the Thunder by having them threaten anything. Let Holt suck up the negativity, this thing passes anyway, and the Thunder walk away smelling like a rose.

At least I suspect that is the strategy here. Only time will tell if it was the correct one.

[PhiAlpha]

Im not sure you should be the one telling others how to behave.

There’s a issue when people speak so matter of fact and attempt to dissuade others under the guise of educating them. You’re ok with his posts because it’s in agreement with your narrative anyone else you’ve personally attacked.

There is a issue with transparency here and public discussion is how it’s addressed. The entire approach is flawed if we have a either or vote in front of us. $900M blank check or the Thunder leave. The city and mayor might’ve failed in their strategy of using the popularity of MAPS to try and shroud the behind the scenes negotiations/discussions. This isn’t a MAPS project and the marketing is creating confusion.

His fundamental point is it has to be handled this way due to the civic responsibilities and obligations. My view is we’re intentionally restricting access to behind the scenes information based on a belief there is a greater likelihood it passes. Along with the approach/strategy for carrying out the vote. However, the public deserves more on a vote of this magnitude.

Hey if some of the people I’ve been an ass to brought any unbiased useful information about how the city works into the discussion instead of repeating the same dumb talking points over and over again, I probably wouldn’t be an ass. Example: I’ve never been an ass to Pete on this because he brings good information without an obvious agenda

I’m okay with Urbanized’s posts because I am aware how much more he knows about all of this than some of you broken records debating him apparently do.

[gopokes88]

Where on God's green earth did the $900 million figure evolve.

Surely it's got to come from somewhere like arena specifications and site acquisition and preparation.

I'll say it again and not anymore.

Post-Covid construction costs have exploded. Everything is basically 2X what it was in 2019 especially anything non residential. This is a highly customized one off building with massive amounts of specialized mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems in it, most of which have significant supply chain issues to deal with.

[SouthOKC]

I'll say it again and not anymore.

Post-Covid construction costs have exploded. Everything is basically 2X what it was in 2019 especially anything non residential. This is a highly customized one off building with massive amounts of specialized mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems in it, most of which have significant supply chain issues to deal with.

I think he’s saying that number has more modeling, planning, scope of work to it than the public has seen. The question is why can’t the public have visibility into those facts?

Clay Bennetts official statement on the city website:
“We now have an opportunity to build on that progress, advance our status as a true big-league City, continue to grow our economy and secure the long-term future of the Thunder. We look forward to continuing our partnership with Mayor Holt, members of the City Council, and the forward-thinking business and civic leaders in our community. Together we can develop an arena to serve as a crowning achievement in the ongoing renaissance of Oklahoma City.”

Keyword in his statement “together”. We’re essentially voting through funding for an arena without any public insight into how the private third party that’s dictating it will be a steward of our generous funds.

Ex. Would it matter if the owners suite was decked out with amenities in lieu of funding for streetscaping. There’s a possibility we end up with additional oversights like we have with the Paycom on the loading docks. Apparently the city didn’t fully understand how to plan for that. That doesn’t instill confidence in their abilities.

[HangryHippo]

Ex. Would it matter if the owners suite was decked out with amenities in lieu of funding for streetscaping. There’s a possibility we end up with additional oversights like we have with the Paycom on the loading docks. Apparently the city didn’t fully understand how to plan for that. That doesn’t instill confidence in their abilities.

Your last two sentences are spot on, imo. The city routinely shows its ass on big projects (streetcar) by trying to reinvent the wheel or value engineer it out. I don’t have a lot of faith in them to plan this one much better.

[dankrutka]

I’m not at all diminishing the reasons someone might WANT to vote “no.” What I’m saying is that an informed no vote must also accept that the team WILL leave as a consequence. Anyone who wants the team to stay but thinks they can vote no as a method of sending a message, or somehow reshaping the negotiation; if they believe there will be “do-overs” or another chance to get this done, they’re gravely mistaken.

If it’s true that ownership would immediately sell based on a single no vote of an the extremely one-sided deal, then this ownership group really are despicable people with no interest in the OKC community. They’re just here for corporate welfare to enrich themselves.

I say this as someone who probably would vote yes. But your claims—and I trust your judgment—have made me lose all respect for the owners.