New Downtown Arena

[Dob Hooligan]

Vegas always seems to be able to pull off (buy) anything they want. I would think they would drool over getting a young, almost ready to compete team with a plan to get the rest of the way there vs getting an expansion team they have to build from the ground up. If the Thunder was offered I bet Vegas would work like crazy to figure out how to get them if they wanted to. Plus the value of the Thunder would increase quite a bit the moment the papers were signed.

Find the arena and make it pencil out. Run the real numbers. And remember, Las Vegas is not only a city with just a couple million people, and soon to become 3 league, if the Athletics move there, but also the Entertainment Capitol of the World! The most competitive market on earth for the leisure dollar.

[BDP]

Vegas always seems to be able to pull off (buy) anything they want. I would think they would drool over getting a young, almost ready to compete team with a plan to get the rest of the way there vs getting an expansion team they have to build from the ground up. If the Thunder was offered I bet Vegas would work like crazy to figure out how to get them if they wanted to. Plus the value of the Thunder would increase quite a bit the moment the papers were signed.

Yeah, whatever market gets the Thunder, they should be light years ahead of any expansion team. Vegas is assumed to be an expansion city, but I'm sure if the Thunder relocation and expansion are on the same timeline, they'd prefer the Thunder. That'll probably just come down to what the NBA wants.

[Jersey Boss]

I'm sorry, but can you imagine the utter futility of such a process? I mean, is this a serious question?

How is knowing who negotiated on behalf of the voters leaps to a futile process? I asked who not what.

[Jersey Boss]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacram...ation_attempts

Not really the same scenario. The Maloofs couldn't afford to run the team anymore in Sacramento, Not the same scenario at all. The mayor of Sacramento was a former NBA player, and used that, as well as another Sacramento billionaire to help convince the owners not to move. The Kings also never put a new arena option in front of voters or on the table.

Does OKC have these same pluses on their side? No. The Thunder are putting an effort in front of voters to build a new arena, which, if it does not pass, will be used aas evidence to the Board of Governors that the city doesn't support the team, the exact same way it as used to get the Thunder. Sacramento Kings have been there a lot longer than the Thunder have been here.

If you are banking on the NBA blocking the move, you will be gravely, gravely mistaken.

Your reply indicates you did not bother to read the posted story in #2328.
Had you read it you would know tht Steve Ballmer wanted to move the team not the Maloofs.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

[chssooner]

Your reply indicates you did not bother to read the posted story in #2328.
Had you read it you would know tht Steve Ballmer wanted to move the team not the Maloofs.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

I did. Hence why I noted that Sacramento had an ex-NBA player go to bat for the city, and he also had a billionaire with him who would help keep the team in Sacramento. Hence why they told them to work it out with the city. OKC doesn't have those advantages. No one is stepping up to help keep them here by buying them from the owners, or anything like that.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/us/nb...was%20rejected.

So if the city votes down the new arena proposal, that takes away another reason the NBA voted against the Kings moving - city buy-in. If the citizens vote this down, then the city buy0in is gone, and the team will move fairly easily.

The article I posted mentioned reasons they stayed in Sacramento. OKC doesn't have those if they vote down the arena proposal.

[Jersey Boss]

I did. Hence why I noted that Sacramento had an ex-NBA player go to bat for the city, and he also had a billionaire with him who would help keep the team in Sacramento. Hence why they told them to work it out with the city. OKC doesn't have those advantages. No one is stepping up to help keep them here by buying them from the owners, or anything like that.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/us/nb...was%20rejected.

So if the city votes down the new arena proposal, that takes away another reason the NBA voted against the Kings moving - city buy-in. If the citizens vote this down, then the city buy0in is gone, and the team will move fairly easily.

The article I posted mentioned reasons they stayed in Sacramento. OKC doesn't have those if they vote down the arena proposal.

And more importantly the relocation committee nixed the move. PBC can't just move the team without the league blessing the move, contrary to what the NFL Raiders have done.

[chssooner]

And more importantly the relocation committee nixed the move. PBC can't just move the team without the league blessing the move, contrary to what the NFL Raiders have done.

If the city votes this down, they can sell, and that party can move it, because the city didn't buy-in.

[Jersey Boss]

https://www.greenberglawoffice.com/n...r%20relocation.

Article 7 of the NBA Constitution and By-laws outline the procedure for a requested relocation, including the engagement of the NBA Relocation Committee. The question whether to approve the proposed relocation is decided by a majority vote of all the members, while a sale or transfer of a team requires a two-thirds vote.

The last proposed relocation, the Sacramento Kings to Seattle, was voted upon in May of 2013 and rejected by a vote of 22 against and 8 for relocation. Any relocation requires sixteen “yes” votes.

[chssooner]

I mean, if people want to leave it up to that, then go ahead and vote no.

[Teo9969]

If a "No" vote prevails, it's not going to be 70/30 ratio. At best "No" prevails 52/48. Nobody is going to leave this vote thinking the city is unwilling to build a new arena.

I do wonder if there is pressure from the league on this deal though. The league would require a relocation if Paycom is not generating (or going to generate) enough revenue in comparison to the rest of the league and I'm not sure the grace period the team would get once they're no longer profitable enough.

[BoulderSooner]

Your reply indicates you did not bother to read the posted story in #2328.
Had you read it you would know tht Steve Ballmer wanted to move the team not the Maloofs.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200

please let me know when ballmer was the owner of the kings?

[BoulderSooner]

If a "No" vote prevails, it's not going to be 70/30 ratio. At best "No" prevails 52/48. Nobody is going to leave this vote thinking the city is unwilling to build a new arena.

I do wonder if there is pressure from the league on this deal though. The league would require a relocation if Paycom is not generating (or going to generate) enough revenue in comparison to the rest of the league and I'm not sure the grace period the team would get once they're no longer profitable enough.

the league can't "require" relocation ..

[BoulderSooner]

https://www.greenberglawoffice.com/n...r%20relocation.

Article 7 of the NBA Constitution and By-laws outline the procedure for a requested relocation, including the engagement of the NBA Relocation Committee. The question whether to approve the proposed relocation is decided by a majority vote of all the members, while a sale or transfer of a team requires a two-thirds vote.

The last proposed relocation, the Sacramento Kings to Seattle, was voted upon in May of 2013 and rejected by a vote of 22 against and 8 for relocation. Any relocation requires sixteen “yes” votes.

restraining free trade is not legal in this country ..

[caaokc]

Nearing 100 pages, what number does it get to come December 12? Over/under 5 comments asking about renderings? lol

[April in the Plaza]

restraining free trade is not legal in this country ..

Not Necessarily

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fede...ational_League

[BoulderSooner]

Not Necessarily

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fede...ational_League

key point

This case is the main reason why MLB has not faced any competitor leagues since 1922, and MLB, to date, remains the only American sports league with such an antitrust exemption.

[Jersey Boss]

please let me know when ballmer was the owner of the kings?

I wanted to accurately quote the posted aricle, but thanks for that

[Jersey Boss]

key point

This case is the main reason why MLB has not faced any competitor leagues since 1922, and MLB, to date, remains the only American sports league with such an antitrust exemption.

And when the NFL was found to be in violation of anti trust laws the USFL was awatded $1.00 which was trebled to 3. That massive judgement really hurt the NFL bottom line, haha. The NBA and NHL were put on notice.

[Anonymous.]

Nearing 100 pages, what number does it get to come December 12? Over/under 5 comments asking about renderings? lol

I don't think anything is close to the Streetcar thread (380 pages I think). But this arena thread will probably be the new page leader by the time it is built.

[Dob Hooligan]

I am 100% in favor of this arena proposal and will vote yes.

People and companies give up their legal rights in business negations on a regular basis. Collective Bargaining Agreements usually involve giving up rights of freedom of conduct and job movement in exchange for financial gain. Drug testing and player contracts that control job movement for more than one day are most obvious. Team owners agree to such limits when they join a league.

I can't imagine the Thunder ownership is engaged in an attempt to build a really crappy and overpriced area in order for them to screw the citizens of Oklahoma. What part of this makes you stand up and say that you know they are corrupt or incompetent? That you know City staff and City Council are idiots, and we MUST have all aspects of this arena fully presented to us in advance? Because we KNOW how modern arenas operate and we KNOW how they will function in the next 50 years?

[SouthOKC]

I don't think anything is close to the Streetcar thread (380 pages I think). But this arena thread will probably be the new page leader by the time it is built.

Rightfully so, I’m my opinion. It has the potential to continue the trajectory our city is on and elevate us to another level. Although, I’m very discontent with certain aspects I really hope we get this right.

[Bill Robertson]

restraining free trade is not legal in this country ..

I spent a bit of time today reading the NBA by-laws. Team owners purchase a membership in the NBA in order to own an NBA franchise. The by-laws refer to owners as members, not owners. Memberships in any organization come with agreements to follow the organization's rules. All teams are franchises granted by the NBA. Not independent businesses able to pursue their own business pursuits. As franchises the NBA has wide reaching authority to make the rules. The NBA isn't breaking any free trade laws.

[Decious]

I’ll be voting yes.

In my forty years, I’ve learned that there’s a difference between being “right” and being wise.

I love taking my family to Thunder games.

I love OKC.

My wife doesn’t really enjoy the actual bball being played but she loves the energy of the event. I watch the court… and she watches us cheer. So… we go to games.

We don’t like the ice storms and severe weather in OKC.

Nevertheless, we stay because the excitement of living in an up and coming city… appeals to us more than living in an already fully established city… where our impact and our opportunities are less needed… noticeable… and less colorful to my kids. We’re raising them to be impactful and engaged. So… we stay.

Hope the vote passes. Hope the Thunder stay.

Not fearful of any negative result. Just hopeful because we love our quality of life here in this city.

I don’t need perfect or even near perfect conditions to live here or to vote yes on this proposal.

Nothing about our city, or any other city, is perfect. But… OKC is currently perfect for us.

Respect to those who see it differently and I believe that you love OKC the same as me.

[BoulderSooner]

I spent a bit of time today reading the NBA by-laws. Team owners purchase a membership in the NBA in order to own an NBA franchise. The by-laws refer to owners as members, not owners. Memberships in any organization come with agreements to follow the organization's rules. All teams are franchises granted by the NBA. Not independent businesses able to pursue their own business pursuits. As franchises the NBA has wide reaching authority to make the rules. The NBA isn't breaking any free trade laws.

al davis was a member of the nfl (and by the way the nba took "owners" out of all their documents because of politics )

he moved the Raiders to LA from oakland with OUT nfl permission . .then moved them back with out NFL permission ..

[BoulderSooner]

And when the NFL was found to be in violation of anti trust laws the USFL was awatded $1.00 which was trebled to 3. That massive judgement really hurt the NFL bottom line, haha. The NBA and NHL were put on notice.

RIP Al davis .... but despite the NFL's wishes he moved the Raiders to LA then back to Oakland with out the NFL's permission