New Downtown Arena

[PoliSciGuy]

Ah, a Chamber of Commerce commissioned study, truly the pinnacle of unbiased, fairly calculated economic value.

Keep in mind, those studies are authored by a consultancy under contract and not subjected to peer review. Those studies have been shown to overinflate benefits, understate costs and not transparently show their methodology. It's more like promotional literature rather than an actual economic study, numerous of which show that those numbers don't stand up to scrutiny.

[chssooner]

Ah, a Chamber of Commerce commissioned study, truly the pinnacle of unbiased, fairly calculated economic value.

Keep in mind, those studies are authored by a consultancy under contract and not subjected to peer review. Those studies have been shown to overinflate benefits, understate costs and not transparently show their methodology. It's more like promotional literature rather than an actual economic study, numerous of which show that those numbers don't stand up to scrutiny.

We get it, nothing they show would change your mind. But your favored economists who hate public arenas, you worship them. But if an economist favors public arenas, you bash them. We get it, you're biased.

[PoliSciGuy]

We get it, nothing they show would change your mind. But your favored economists who hate public arenas, you worship them. But if an economist favors public arenas, you bash them. We get it, you're biased.

If they submitted their work to peer review and showed their models, I would absolutely take their claims seriously. Could you say the same about studies, whose conclusions you disagree with? Or is your own bias blocking your vision?

[April in the Plaza]

We get it, nothing they show would change your mind. But your favored economists who hate public arenas, you worship them. But if an economist favors public arenas, you bash them. We get it, you're biased.

Holt claims The City will break even on this deal in two years (his claim assumes $600M/yr. in annual economic impact), which is, quite frankly, one of the most dishonest and laughable claims I’ve ever heard from any politician.

He must really think we’re all idiots. There’s really no other explanation for his behavior.

[chssooner]

Holt claims The City will break even on this deal in two years (his claim assumes $600M/yr. in annual economic impact), which is, quite frankly, one of the most dishonest and laughable claims I’ve ever heard from any politician.

He must really think we’re all idiots. There’s really no other explanation for his behavior.

Again, you're biased, so your opinion isn't 100% fair or rational. Thinking the worst of the mayor isn't fair.

But since you keep spewing the same thing over and over again, here is my take. Will it be $600 million to the city directly a year, very likely no. But in terms of economic impact, I think it will break even a lot quicker than anyone thinks. You can't just look at the arena. Look at the hotels around it, cafes and restaurants, shops, etc. People who come to OKC for a game might end up staying in a hotel, eating at a restaurant, go to a mall, etc. All of those count as an impact of the arena, no? Same if OKC gets a concert that Tulsa doesn't get, or people from Lawton want to go to. This is an arena impact, no? I have friends who work at the arena, and they have said it is hard for them to get certain shows at the Paycom, due to a plethora of issues, mostly due to loading and dock issues. Those can't be fixed, based off the arena's design. There are numerous shows that want to come here, but can't make it work logistically. So a new arena built with those issues in mind would get bigger, better concerts and events, leading to more tourism and hotel stays. Maybe not a ton each night, but over the course of 70 or so events a year, yeah, it can add up quick.

Plus, if the Thunder leave (which they will, I have no doubt talks have already been underway), that would put a major damper on much of the growth OKC has had, due to there no longer being a national cache associated with OKC that the Thunder bring. It is impossible to fully measure, hence why I included it last on my list. But that doesn't make it any less true.

Is it a perfect deal? No. But I actually like OKC having control of the arena. Just my opinion.

[TheTravellers]

If they submitted their work to peer review and showed their models, I would absolutely take their claims seriously. Could you say the same about studies, cruise conclusions you disagree with? Or is your own bias blocking your vision?

This. I'm the same was as PoliSciGuy, people get p***ed off at me because I want evidence, I want facts, I want numbers, etc. for a great many things, and many times it was lacking. If the facts show that my prospective decision is wrong, I'll change it. I do a ton of research before almost any major decision (I look up every single candidate's position on every single issue for every single election I vote in, for example). Wanting the facts and numbers and evidence behind something before you decide is not the same thing as biased and it gets really old that people get so angry at others for not just following blindly whatever someone says.

[chssooner]

If they submitted their work to peer review and showed their models, I would absolutely take their claims seriously. Could you say the same about studies, whose conclusions you disagree with? Or is your own bias blocking your vision?

I'm not biased. I don't love the proposal, but I know that the owners have us by the short and curly's. We have no leverage, and OKC's national perception isn't great, because of our state. Having the Thunder helps us overcome that, a small bit. Arenas help QOL, and have a better return than Parks do. Hence why Ron Swanson wanted to close the parks before anything else in Parks and Recreation. I know, a sitcom, but from s numbers perspective, they are a money pit. I know that isn't their service, so why should an arena be the only asset that have a positive ROI, in your mind?

I also don't believe the Mayor is scum and lying to us and treating us all like we are dumb. I look forward to seeing the Chamber's analysis.

I know there are a multitude of qualitative things involved in this. They can't be explained in numbers. I want to see some numbers, as well. But I know that there are things numbers won't be able to show for this.

[BDP]

Economic impact of concerts and live entertainment industry in Oklahoma:

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publ...ownload/357234

Broader study:

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publ...ownload/357150

[Rover]

I'm not biased. I don't love the proposal, but I know that the owners have us by the short and curly's. We have no leverage, and OKC's national perception isn't great, because of our state. Having the Thunder helps us overcome that, a small bit. Arenas help QOL, and have a better return than Parks do. Hence why Ron Swanson wanted to close the parks before anything else in Parks and Recreation. I know, a sitcom, but from s numbers perspective, they are a money pit. I know that isn't their service, so why should an arena be the only asset that have a positive ROI, in your mind?

I also don't believe the Mayor is scum and lying to us and treating us all like we are dumb. I look forward to seeing the Chamber's analysis.

I know there are a multitude of qualitative things involved in this. They can't be explained in numbers. I want to see some numbers, as well. But I know that there are things numbers won't be able to show for this.

If, as you say, one party has the other at a disadvantage, it often is because they bring more to the negotiations than the other party is willing to bring. OKC certainly has the option to vote no and see where the chips lay. If, as certain posters believe there is no real value to the Thunder, then what does the city lose exactly? Others of us believe the value of the Thunder to the city and its businesses and cititzens is real.

[chssooner]

If, as you say, one party has the other at a disadvantage, it often is because they bring more to the negotiations than the other party is willing to bring. OKC certainly has the option to vote no and see where the chips lay. If, as certain posters believe there is no real value to the Thunder, then what does the city lose exactly? Other of us believe the value of the Thunder to the city and its businesses and cititzens is real.

Yeah, but to me, voting no isn't a risk I want to take. The team will be sold, and will do everything in their power to leave, as soon as possible.

[BDP]

Evaluating the Economic Contribution of a Large Indoor Entertainment Venue: An Inscope Expenditure Study

[Rover]

Yeah, but to me, voting no isn't a risk I want to take. The team will be sold, and will do everything in their power to leave, as soon as possible.

Right, so there is in your mind comperable value. And I agree.

Where the leverage applies is that the Thunder win in ether scenario and the city only wins in one. Thunder may actually profit more from a no vote than a yes.

[mugofbeer]

This is just hilarious reading. You either want the Thunder to be in OKC for an extended period of time or you don't. You either want OKC to break the "cowtown" image and wear big boy pants or you don't. The one guaranty is that if the vote is no and the Thunder move rumors start up, the "no" voters will be the first to cry about how backward OKC is.

Vote no, they'll likely look to leave. There are multiple other cities that will build them a competative home. It's as simple as that.

[aDark]

Does anyone have updated data re polling for this upcoming vote? Normally, I don't engage in social media discourse as it's incredibly toxic, especially when the user goes by a made-up name. On this issue I am breaking that rule and engaging across the board as I sincerely think this vote is the one of the most important votes in the City's recent history.

I'd love to know if it's as close as it appears to be on some social media platforms.

[Anonymous.]

Saw this in the arena last night.

[warreng88]

There has been a lot of talk about the arena not being big enough for concerts and events back to back, but looking at the arena schedule, OKC plays the Hornets on 2/2, Tool plays 2/3 and then OKC plays the Raptors on 2/4. I can't imagine Tool's stage wouldn't be pretty elaborate and it is at the end with 110/111 and no seats available behind it.

There are a few other examples of this (Thunder on 12/27, Jeff Dunham on 12/28, OKC Blue on 12/29; OKC Blue on 12/6, Trans-Siberian on 12/7, Blue on 12/8, Adam Sandler on 12/9, etc). Is the understanding that we would get more concerts in between thunder games with more space or is it just difficult to manage with the amount of space that we have?

And for the record, I am not trolling or trying to start anything, I just genuinely don't know and want to get more info.

[Richard at Remax]

I'm glad you brought up the Blue. I can't believe they play at Paycom. I also find it hard to believe that Paycom would turn down a big touring act cause the blue are playing. I hope that doesn't actually happen and they have alternate plans.

[Pete]

I'm glad you brought up the Blue. I can't believe they play at Paycom. I also find it hard to believe that Paycom would turn down a big touring act cause the blue are playing. I hope that doesn't actually happen and they have alternate plans.

They had to be moved to Paycom when the City made the deal with Prairie Surf at the Cox Center.

In fact, the City had to pay to move them there.

[caaokc]

I haven’t heard anywhere other than this board that Paycom can’t hold back to back events

[LordGerald]

There has been a lot of talk about the arena not being big enough for concerts and events back to back, but looking at the arena schedule, OKC plays the Hornets on 2/2, Tool plays 2/3 and then OKC plays the Raptors on 2/4. I can't imagine Tool's stage wouldn't be pretty elaborate and it is at the end with 110/111 and no seats available behind it.

There are a few other examples of this (Thunder on 12/27, Jeff Dunham on 12/28, OKC Blue on 12/29; OKC Blue on 12/6, Trans-Siberian on 12/7, Blue on 12/8, Adam Sandler on 12/9, etc). Is the understanding that we would get more concerts in between thunder games with more space or is it just difficult to manage with the amount of space that we have?

And for the record, I am not trolling or trying to start anything, I just genuinely don't know and want to get more info.

I don't have insider information, but historic observations: My office is in the BancFirst building, and I have a picturesque view of the PCC. I always check the schedule and love to watch the load-in. For small concerts like Jelly Roll, he only had four trucks and two buses, and they backed each in, and parked across the rail viaduct. It took a few hours. For WWE last month, there were at least a dozen trucks and five or six busses, and it took all day to synchronize the trucks. Traffic is backed up on Shields, as they have to back the trucks down a fairly steep ramp.

On a related note, when Taylor Swift played here on the "Speak Now" tour, before I-40 was rebuilt, she had at least 20 trucks, and it took them all day to synchronize, back up the trucks and complete the load-in. Traffic was pretty much shut down on Shields/Gaylord. I remember this distinctly because I was caught in the middle of it, trying to get to my office in Bricktown.

The ramp and truck access to the PCC is definitely a logistics issue.

[Rover]

I don't have insider information, but historic observations: My office is in the BancFirst building, and I have a picturesque view of the PCC. I always check the schedule and love to watch the load-in. For small concerts like Jelly Roll, he only had four trucks and two buses, and they backed each in, and parked across the rail viaduct. It took a few hours. For WWE last month, there were at least a dozen trucks and five or six busses, and it took all day to synchronize the trucks. Traffic is backed up on Shields, as they have to back the trucks down a fairly steep ramp.

On a related note, when Taylor Swift played here on the "Speak Now" tour, before I-40 was rebuilt, she had at least 20 trucks, and it took them all day to synchronize, back up the trucks and complete the load-in. Traffic was pretty much shut down on Shields/Gaylord. I remember this distinctly because I was caught in the middle of it, trying to get to my office in Bricktown.

The ramp and truck access to the PCC is definitely a logistics issue.

I have a brother in logistics for large touring bands and this reflects his comments. PayCom is not designed well for logistics and has no room to make it better.

For anyone who goes there for Thunder, concerts or other events, it is obvious the concourse areas are cramped and limited. It is a basic functioning arena at best, both inside and out. Go to any of the newer big city venues and you will immediately get it.

[LordGerald]

I have a brother in logistics for large touring bands and this reflects his comments. PayCom is not designed well for logistics and has no room to make it better.

For anyone who goes there for Thunder, concerts or other events, it is obvious the concourse areas are cramped and limited. It is a basic functioning arena at best, both inside and out. Go to any of the newer big city venues and you will immediately get it.

On that note, merchandise sales have huge profit margins for touring artists now. We've come a long way from the basic black concert t-shirt. Many huge bands, like Metallica, Iron Maiden and Pearl Jam make more money off of merch than they do music. Pearl Jam has pop-up shops that set up days before the concert and this specialty retail rakes in big time $. When I saw Maiden at the PCC on the Book of Souls tour, they had merch tables anywhere they could find space. It looked like a flea market. So yeah, larger concourse areas would be greatly needed as more and more artists rely on merch sales to drive revenue.

[Urbanized]

There has been a lot of talk about the arena not being big enough for concerts and events back to back, but looking at the arena schedule, OKC plays the Hornets on 2/2, Tool plays 2/3 and then OKC plays the Raptors on 2/4. I can't imagine Tool's stage wouldn't be pretty elaborate and it is at the end with 110/111 and no seats available behind it.

There are a few other examples of this (Thunder on 12/27, Jeff Dunham on 12/28, OKC Blue on 12/29; OKC Blue on 12/6, Trans-Siberian on 12/7, Blue on 12/8, Adam Sandler on 12/9, etc). Is the understanding that we would get more concerts in between thunder games with more space or is it just difficult to manage with the amount of space that we have?

And for the record, I am not trolling or trying to start anything, I just genuinely don't know and want to get more info.

Thunder and Blue games don't load out the way concerts do. They definitely don't need the loading docks. Essentially they stack chairs, stack up the floor panels, and roll everything to the bowels of the building. The problem would be having TOOL one night and Luke Combs (or anyone else) the next night. The Thunder as a tenant is surprisingly light on its feet.

[mugofbeer]

If they submitted their work to peer review and showed their models, I would absolutely take their claims seriously. Could you say the same about studies, whose conclusions you disagree with? Or is your own bias blocking your vision?

Kind of like how you take as gospel the opinions of writings who fit your narrative but dismiss stats provided by local governments as "Chamber of Commerce" propaganda? Anything can be peer reviewed if the peers have an agenda to push.

[SouthOKC]

Thunder and Blue games don't load out the way concerts do. They definitely don't need the loading docks. Essentially they stack chairs, stack up the floor panels, and roll everything to the bowels of the building. The problem would be having TOOL one night and Luke Combs (or anyone else) the next night. The Thunder as a tenant is surprisingly light on its feet.

How many nights per year would hosting major back 2 back concerts be a possibility? It’s talked about like it’s a huge problem but what are we really taking about 1-2 concerts every year?