New Downtown Arena

[chssooner]

It's interesting to consider what will happen if the vote fails on Tuesday because that is at least a possibility.

I know many will say, "That's it; OKC has lost the Thunder forever." However, I don't believe things would be that simple and straightforward because the City and the state wouldn't just sit idly by without trying to keep the team.

I'm sure the Thunder owners would start making noise about selling/moving, and maybe right away.

Then, I think the state legislature would get involved, which should have happened at the outset. Then some sort of package would start to take shape from both the state and the City.

I know David Holt would move heaven and earth because if he didn't help put together something palatable to both citizens and the Thunder, his entire political career -- which he has been cultivating most of his life -- would be finished.

Or, Stitt would try to lure them to Tulsa. Jkjk

I don't know if it will matter, unfortunately. Talks have already taken place between ownership and potential buyers. It would take a monumental effort to be able to keep them, should this fail. I don't know how much the state would truly help.

But I hope you are right. In all honesty, I hope it passes and we don't have to worry.

[Pete]

Talks have already taken place between ownership and potential buyers.

Has this been confirmed anywhere or is it yet more speculation?

[Thunderbolt]

The Athletic had a piece on the potential of league expansion earlier this week, mentioning there are multiple groups vying for the rights to an expansion franchise. While that's a different situation than buying and potentially relocating the Thunder, it shows the appettite for NBA ownership right now.

https://theathletic.com/5078791/2023...ability-ideas/

"As the NBA has slowly inched forward, a class of interested parties have moved ahead too. A steady, if informal, buildup is already starting among prospective buyers for the next round of available expansion franchises to hit the market, based on conversations with nearly a dozen sports-investment banking and industry sources, who along with other sources in this story were granted anonymity so they could speak freely. One sports investment banker said he already has spoken to people who are assembling to buy an expansion franchise. Another longtime banker said he knows of three groups angling to get into the bidding process."

[LocoAko]

It is interesting to see competing op-eds, both in the Oklahoman today, from two council members on one side and six council members and the mayor on the other. And the fact that the "for" side is apparently accessible without a subscription and the "against" side is not. That said, I'm seeing a lot of anti-arena rhetoric from all sorts of people I know across the spectrum, which has me fairly concerned about how this may end up (coupled with the absolute blitz of mailers).

For: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opin...G1X1uFfD1THXKs

Against: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opin...e/71837657007/

[Pete]

^

Reminder that the Oklahoman is the biggest beneficiary of Thunder advertising dollars, with very frequent full-page ads.

That paper makes a weak attempt to give the appearance of being objective although it is anything but.

[caaokc]

Also harder to get a pulse of the no votes since they don’t have the finances that the yes campaign has.

[Pete]

Surprisingly, the City Sentinel has run several editorials in strong opposition to the proposed arena deal.

They are definitely on the hard right and quite tuned into the local power brokers:

Approving the new arena on December 12 will raise taxes set to expire in 2028. So: Vote No

7 Reasons to VOTE NO on December 12 Against New Thunder Arena

[okcrun]

Not even going to comment about the economics of it but optics of the proposal are so bad you almost wonder if they set this up to fail so they could either leave or sell the team to out of state buyers. The 5% number is such a slap in the face you might as well have done 100% financed by the city and figured out a way to promote it being a city asset that can generate revenue over time. They've made it far too easy for anyone that wants to oppose it to focus on the 5% contribution for the owners which undermines any potential benefits. I'm willing to bet that 90% of people that support the proposal still have a bad taste in their mouth from the owners contribution.

[Laramie]

Nevermind...

[shai2022]

Not even going to comment about the economics of it but optics of the proposal are so bad you almost wonder if they set this up to fail so they could either leave or sell the team to out of state buyers. The 5% number is such a slap in the face you might as well have done 100% financed by the city and figured out a way to promote it being a city asset that can generate revenue over time. They've made it far too easy for anyone that wants to oppose it to focus on the 5% contribution for the owners which undermines any potential benefits. I'm willing to bet that 90% of people that support the proposal still have a bad taste in their mouth from the owners contribution.

Well ownership would 100% make more money selling and/or moving the franchise. In fact, it would be the prudent financial decision whether this arena deal was on the table or not. Almost like they threw the city a lifeline.
Not really sure why so many are in denial that the team is packing up and gone if this doesn't go through. The minimization of the consequences of us losing an NBA franchise have quite frankly surprised and caught me off guard as well.
Is the deal amazing - no. Won't even argue that. But do the pros of this going through outweigh the cons? No doubt in my book. Lets continue to move the city forward, not backward.

[Pete]

Holt called the 5% on behalf of the owners a 'donation' and that we were lucky to get it because the team doesn't own the arena.

However, he purposely left out that it is to the team's great benefit to not own it and let the City absorb a big loss every year, currently around $2 million per year, a figure that would almost certainly go up with the new arena.


I've said from the beginning that the back-room dealings, a lack of any meaningful research into what is reasonable, no information about the full cost to taxpayers, and the blackmail tactic of "give them a billion or they will leave" have brought us to a place that many will vote no who would otherwise be inclined to support a new arena.

[Dob Hooligan]

It's interesting to consider what will happen if the vote fails on Tuesday because that is at least a possibility.

I know many will say, "That's it; OKC has lost the Thunder forever." However, I don't believe things would be that simple and straightforward because the City and the state wouldn't just sit idly by without trying to keep the team.

I'm sure the Thunder owners would start making noise about selling/moving, and maybe right away.

Then, I think the state legislature would get involved, which should have happened at the outset. Then some sort of package would start to take shape from both the state and the City.

I know David Holt would move heaven and earth because if he didn't help put together something palatable to both citizens and the Thunder, his entire political career -- which he has been cultivating most of his life -- would be finished.

Teams don't move in a vacuum. There is no higher level of politics in the NBA than a team moving. It is the third rail these days. The NBA despises teams moving and they especially don't want the possibility to exist during potential expansion time. Screws the market.

The Thunder ownership group is made up of civic leaders who are well known, mature and have their lives work and reputation tied to Oklahoma City. They are not gonna call Adam Silver Wednesday morning and scream "Sell!"

[Dob Hooligan]

Surprisingly, the City Sentinel has run several editorials in strong opposition to the proposed arena deal.

They are definitely on the hard right and quite tuned into the local power brokers:

Approving the new arena on December 12 will raise taxes set to expire in 2028. So: Vote No

7 Reasons to VOTE NO on December 12 Against New Thunder Arena

I have zero idea what this graphic hopes to illustrate?

[warreng88]

What does this have to do with OKC Arena vote? Just more deflection. Why not highlight the workers who are provided jobs as a result of events held in the city's public facilities? I guess it isn't as emotionally off-putting as highlighting people who are best in the world at what they are doing and making premium money doing it.

To be clear, the poster above this comment was saying Steph was the highest paid player. The link to what players get paid.

[Pete]

Teams don't move in a vacuum. There is no higher level of politics in the NBA than a team moving. It is the third rail these days. The NBA despises teams moving and they especially don't want the possibility to exist during potential expansion time. Screws the market.

The Thunder ownership group is made up of civic leaders who are well known, mature and have their lives work and reputation tied to Oklahoma City. They are not gonna call Adam Silver Wednesday morning and scream "Sell!"

What would be the team's argument for making the move? "We demanded an arena deal that is completely off the charts from anything that has ever happened in American sports, and they said no to that arrangement but are in the process of coming up with something more in line with what everyone else has done, and now we want to punish them."

And of course, if they could make billions by selling, what is going to stop from doing exactly that even after a new arena is built? What's the worst case in such a transaction? The team has to negotiate a buyout or merely pay the remainder on the lease (exactly like they did in Seattle)? If the argument is they would make a huge profit by selling, a new arena doesn't change that in any substantial way.

[BDP]

Teams don't move in a vacuum. There is no higher level of politics in the NBA than a team moving. It is the third rail these days. The NBA despises teams moving and they especially don't want the possibility to exist during potential expansion time. Screws the market.

The Thunder ownership group is made up of civic leaders who are well known, mature and have their lives work and reputation tied to Oklahoma City. They are not gonna call Adam Silver Wednesday morning and scream "Sell!"

I guess we'll see. When this fails. It would ultimately come down to the will of the NBA as a whole and what they want. The NBA would have to feel they have enough vested interest in OKC to use their resources to broker a different deal. I don't know how much support from owners there would be for that.

The NO vote has shown that an arena in OKC is a money losing proposition for the owner. It would be an interesting move to make an effort to gain a higher stake in one if that is the case. Team valuation, media rights, and revenue share would probably project higher in a lot of other markets, too.

[LocoAko]

I have zero idea what this graphic hopes to illustrate?

Also, "with owner world want to more their franchise..."? Was there even an attempt at proofreading this before they put it out?

[PoliSciGuy]

I have zero idea what this graphic hopes to illustrate?

...that the OKC proposal is anomalously low? Surely you can see that it's a clear outlier here.

[Laramie]

If this fails and the Thunder leaves--let's go after the NHL Phoenix Coyotes.



Plan a new arena vote for the NHL in OKC and let the Coyotes use the 15.152 seat Payom Center as a temporary home until a new NHL arena is built, let's see what the Coyotes' owner would contribute toward a new arena.

Would have some great rivals in Dallas Stars, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, Chicago Blackhawks and Colorado Avalanche.

[gopokes88]

Thunder's internal polling has it at 60% yes. Guess we'll see how good their polling is.

[Laramie]

Thunder's internal polling has it at 60% yes. Guess we'll see how good their polling is.

Link please . . .

[PhiAlpha]

This isn't an appeal to a debate or argument: I agree with her.

That’s cool! This is America and you have the right to be wrong and tell us about it.

If you want to vote with the most regressive councilman in the city, power to you!

[Urbanized]

I have zero idea what this graphic hopes to illustrate?

...that the OKC proposal is anomalously low? Surely you can see that it's a clear outlier here.

Oh, man...you're so right! Here it was just staring us in the face this whole time! Clearly the deal is WAY worse than the deals with the other 18 teams in the NBA! What's that..? You say there are THIRTY teams in the NBA?! Why in the heck would those not have been included, if so? Maybe there just wasn't enough room in the paper...SURELY they wouldn't have left them out simply because they didn't fit the narrative, would they? Doing that would betray abject intellectual dishonesty.

Sarcasm aside, those one-dimensional figures - and who knows how accurate they are coming from a pub that apparently doesn't even proofread their opinion pieces - tell only a part of the story. And there is no attempt here - or from others who are trying to make dollars-only arguments - to tell the full story. And the fact that it only lists the roughly half of the NBA that appears on the surface to have a better deal is a red flag the size of a football field.

There are layers upon layers of missing context. What is the team's rent in each of those buildings? What is the revenue split on non-NBA rents? How about the concessions split? Who pays for the labor on game nights? Who pays on non-game nights? What percentage of the overhead do they pay? Who manages and maintains the building? How much does that cost the team, or conversely, how much does it cost the city in question?

Also, while I have no specific insight, I can PROMISE that the teams who 100% own their building are doing it because in their respective markets being the building owner is a profitable endeavor. Meaning they want to own the building because they can turn a profit on the other events it brings. That puts them into a very select class of cities; cities where it's actually profitable to operate a venue. In nearly every other city in America arenas operate at a loss. Just like parks, libraries, performing arts centers...buildings like these are almost always amenities, not profit-centers. I can promise that if there was a path to make the building profitable the Thunder's owners would be 100% all for owning it.

But, at the end of the day OKC is a marginal though aspirational market. And team owners can't be expected to shoulder the building burden. As a city we have a choice to make: do we want to remain an NBA city, with progressively better entertainment options such as concerts, or do we not? The path is very clear in both directions. No amount of intellectual dishonesty or cherry-picked and incomplete data can change this simple fact.

[Dob Hooligan]

Oh, man...you're so right! Here it was just staring us in the face this whole time! Clearly the deal is WAY worse than the deals with the other 18 teams in the NBA! What's that..? You say there are THIRTY teams in the NBA?! Why in the heck would those not have been included, if so? Maybe there just wasn't enough room in the paper...SURELY they wouldn't have left them out because they didn't fit the narrative, would they? Doing that would betray abject intellectual dishonesty.

Sarcasm aside, those one-dimensional figures - and who knows how accurate they are coming from a pub that apparently doesn't even proofread their opinion pieces - tell only a part of the story. And there is no attempt here - or from others who are trying to make dollars-only arguments - to tell the full story. And the fact that it only lists the roughly half of the NBA that appears on the surface to have a better deal is a red flag the size of a football field.

There are layers upon layers of missing context. What is the team's rent in each of those buildings? What is the revenue split on non-NBA rents? How about the concessions split? Who pays for the labor on game nights? Who pays on non-game nights? What percentage of the overhead do they pay? Who manages and maintains the building? How much does that cost the team, or conversely, how much does it cost the city in question?

Also, while I have no specific insight, I can PROMISE that the teams who 100% own their building are doing it because in their respective markets being the building owner is a profitable endeavor. Meaning they want to own the building because they can turn a profit on the other events it brings. That puts them into a very select class of cities; cities where it's actually profitable to operate a venue. In nearly every other city in America arenas operate at a loss. Just like parks, libraries, performing arts centers...buildings like these are almost always amenities, not profit-centers. I can promise that if there was a path to make the building profitable the Thunder's owners would be 100% all for owning it.

But, at the end of the day OKC is a marginal though aspirational market. And team owners can't be expected to shoulder the building burden. As a city we have a choice to make: do we want to remain an NBA city, or do we not? The path is very clear in both directions. No amount of intellectual dishonesty or cherry-picked and incomplete data can change this simple fact.

I think Salt Lake City has a 30-40 year old building. Former Jazz owner, the late Larry Miller was a large presence in Utah for a long time. I'm sure the city has been very supportive of his efforts.

Denver has Walmart family member Stan Kroenke as owner of both the NBA and NHL teams.

I have no idea who the 80% would be in Los Angeles. The Lakers, Clippers and Kings are all tenants of the same arena.

[citywokchinesefood]

What would be the team's argument for making the move? "We demanded an arena deal that is completely off the charts from anything that has ever happened in American sports, and they said no to that arrangement but are in the process of coming up with something more in line with what everyone else has done, and now we want to punish them."

And of course, if they could make billions by selling, what is going to stop from doing exactly that even after a new arena is built? What's the worst case in such a transaction? The team has to negotiate a buyout or merely pay the remainder on the lease (exactly like they did in Seattle)? If the argument is they would make a huge profit by selling, a new arena doesn't change that in any substantial way.

The honest worst case scenario for a no vote would look something like the Thunder being sold to a Seattle based ownership group. Many in the NBA still view the original sale of the Sonics and eventual move from Seattle to Oklahoma City as the premeditated theft of a franchise. To be completely honest it was, but I don't think any of us want to complain about that fact. The NBA board of governors would absolutely not stop a trade sending the Thunder to a larger media market that just so happens to be the original home of the franchise. The entire league stands to benefit financially from moving from one of the smallest media markets to a larger one, and having the opportunity to still expand to two additional media markets. NBA expansion is going to happen and Seattle and Vegas are the next two NBA cities, it is an open secret in the NBA world. With a no vote we will get to see if the NBA is going to try to go back to Vancouver or swing big and try to establish a franchise in Mexico.