New Downtown Arena

[Bill Robertson]

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.

Nooooooooo!!!!!! I'd be completely torn. I should be a fan of my local team but I'm a HUGE Avalanche fan!

[Bill Robertson]

I voted around 1. From parking to leaving I saw about 20 people

[Shortsyeararound]

This whole yes- they stay and owners “pay/donate” very little vs no- they leave and the owners sell and make more money is very much the plot of Promised Land to me. Reading how the owners are donating little or having secret talks to move- like every action/reaction is their working of both sides. A continuation of the tax to me (born/raised here) is not a “new” tax like this is being spun. My family is not “on-the hook” for 1200-1600 per person on this arena, as the anti-vote will tell you. Countless times some people in this forum will ask for hardline info about how the Thunder have changed the economy/outlook of our city and all one needs to do is remember what the core looked like before. Are the numbers mind boggling - yes, but is it worth it- yes to me.

[TheTravellers]

...Countless times some people in this forum will ask for hardline info about how the Thunder have changed the economy/outlook of our city and all one needs to do is remember what the core looked like before....

Some, yes, but not *all* of OKC/core's renaissance is due to the Thunder. And no, I don't know how much of the percentage is or what the rest of it would be due to, nor do I have the time to research it, but it's kind of disingenuous to say the Thunder made OKC/core what it is today by them coming here to the exclusion of all other factors.

[Brett]

I voted "No" yesterday because it is a raw deal for the tax payers. A relatively "no risk" deal for the owners with all of the profit and very little financial layout.

Sadly, I believe that the majority of OKC residents who vote are easily mislead and manipulated all for the promise of bread and circuses.

[Shortsyeararound]

Some, yes, but not *all* of OKC/core's renaissance is due to the Thunder. And no, I don't know how much of the percentage is or what the rest of it would be due to, nor do I have the time to research it, but it's kind of disingenuous to say the Thunder made OKC/core what it is today by them coming here to the exclusion of all other factors.

They are all intertwined. One contributes to the other. Thunder helped/okc grows/okc growing/Thunder came- all works together. Side note- everytime I see your handle, The Traveller by Flock of Seagulls plays in my head.

[Dob Hooligan]

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.

Seattle doesn't have an NBA arena. The NHL Kraken are the anchor tenant of Climate Pledge Arena. I'm guessing it would take $75 million a year to get them to take second position in the arena.

Seattle is a large market, no doubt. It also features the NFL, MLB, NHL, plus MLS and WNBA do count for something there.

Las Vegas is a great place. To visit. 2.5 million people with population within 200 miles relatively small. Las Vegas has NHL, NFL, (soon to be) MLB as seasonal sports dollar competition. Annual super sporting events include NFR, Formula 1and the NBA in season tournament.

Laas Vegas does not have an NBA available arena. T-Mobile has the NHL Golden Knights as primary tenant, and one of the highest demand levels in the country for any other dates.

My point being that other cities might be not generate more money than OKC quickly, easily and with no risk.

[Urbanized]

The current Thunder ownership won't move the team to those or any other cities. They will inevitably RECEIVE PURCHASE OFFERS from OTHER prospective owners. Which they will almost assuredly take, stuck in a building becoming rapidly obsolete and with no ability to add revenue while operating costs spiral, AND with a chance to get 10X their original purchase price.

And - with no NBA-capable arena on the horizon in OKC - those new owners will have no reason or incentive to stay in OKC. And in fact, they will almost certainly be just like the Thunder's ownership group was in 2006 when they purchased the Supersonics; that is, they will be buying with the ultimate intention of having an NBA team in THEIR city. None of those stats listed above will have any bearing on whether or not they move. They WILL move. Period.

[BoulderSooner]

Seattle doesn't have an NBA arena. The NHL Kraken are the anchor tenant of Climate Pledge Arena. I'm guessing it would take $75 million a year to get them to take second position in the arena.

that is not how it works ..

[Cocaine]

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

[BDP]

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.

What is it about using state funds that changes the calculus for NO voters who don't want a publicly owned arena with a major tenant? Would it just be cash that isn't directly voted on? Would there be tax district carve out(s) like Wisconsin?

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding, if this deal is politically untenable, how any other that uses public funds would be. The crux of the NO vote seems to be public money should not be spent building any public venues used in part by high value tenants. I know your position has been more nuanced, but the greater NO vote's arguments are generally more blunt.

I also have not gotten any sense that there is any kind of consensus among NO voters of what would satisfy them. I think we can all agree that a privately financed venue worthy of current NBA arena standards is not within the realm of reality for OKC, at least not within the time frame being discussed.

[April in the Plaza]

The current Thunder ownership won't move the team to those or any other cities. They will inevitably RECEIVE PURCHASE OFFERS from OTHER prospective owners. Which they will almost assuredly take, stuck in a building becoming rapidly obsolete and with no ability to add revenue while operating costs spiral, AND with a chance to get 10X their original purchase price.

And - with no NBA-capable arena on the horizon in OKC - those new owners will have no reason or incentive to stay in OKC. And in fact, they will almost certainly be just like the Thunder's ownership group was in 2006 when they purchased the Supersonics; that is, they will be buying with the ultimate intention of having an NBA team in THEIR city. None of those stats listed above will have any bearing on whether or not they move. They WILL move. Period.

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

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

[Urbanized]

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

Good grief, you're making this much harder than it needs to be, which is puzzling because I've never taken you to be obtuse. If the building is approved and becomes the basis for a long-term, stable revenue for the team that can be easily adapted to new types of revenue streams, the team won't leave. Should there be language that makes it more difficult for future owners to bail? Absolutely; I agree that there should be. And I would suspect the current ownership group would be at least reasonably cooperative in its addition, because I think they've demonstrated quite markedly over the past two decades that they are committed to having a team in OKC, for a variety of reasons.

I think I'm the first person on this board who brought up the possibility that the ownership is likely to change some even with a new arena, but the reasons for that aren't based on intel or an announcement, they're based on human nature and on reality. It already HAS changed, in the past. Folks age out, folks pass away, some folks might want to cash in on the fruits of their labor and cash out on their investment. When I said I would anticipate ownership changes in the future THAT'S what I was talking about, and it has turned into yet another way for some to twist the story to their benefit.

I believe strongly that the present ownership is trying to put the team into the strongest position possible for the long term in this marginal market, so that no matter what befalls the current owner group the team will remain. Legacy work for them.

But I also strongly believe they are likely to take the inevitable calls from the vultures who will reach out the day after the vote fails, should that be the case.

Edit: one thing I'd also add is that if/when some percentage of the ownership group changes, the chances are very high that the new owners would be from OKC or have OKC ties. Will be much easier to accomplish with a secure team future. Without a new building, however, new owners would almost certainly be vultures from out of state, looking ultimately to relocate.

[Dob Hooligan]

that is not how it works ..

So, tell me how it works. With more than 5 dismissive words.

[jn1780]

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

That would be the true worse case scenario. Hope whoever buys a stake or inherits their dad's/husbands stake when he passes away likes OKC/Oklahoma enough.

This should be a warning that we need to continue to improve ourselves and build leverage. Oklahoma City is not the only city that can have extraordinary circumstances to benefit it.

[Bellaboo]

I voted "No" yesterday because it is a raw deal for the tax payers. A relatively "no risk" deal for the owners with all of the profit and very little financial layout.

Sadly, I believe that the majority of OKC residents who vote are easily mislead and manipulated all for the promise of bread and circuses.

Completely disagree. If the vote turns out to be NO, then a state of depression will overtake a lot of folks. It happened when the National Finals Rodeo left for Vegas. If this arena build didn't come up, then you'd be paying a penny MAPS 5 take for the next six years.

Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that.

[Bellaboo]

So they will move no matter what then? If we approve a new arena and the ownership sells. Couldn't the new owners just break the lease and move anyway? The only way it could be made up would be if the thunder were forced to pay $2 billion for breaking the lease. I say that because it should be punitive. Does anyone trust the leadership in okc to put a huge penalty if the thunder break their lease on a potential new arena? Sorry but you've been had vote however you like but if an ownership wants to leave then they will leave. And if everything is brittle that they'll leave after the vote fails one time then maybe okc just doesn't deserve a big league team.

I'm still under the assumption that next week this vote will pass. A lot of people will get rich off the people of okc while they'll be little to no benefit for the average person. The craziest part about all of this is what happens if the ownership isn't planning on selling and all of this was said to fleece the people into going for a new arena where the thunder put up almost no money. As of now the thunder haven't came out and said that they plan on selling. They also haven't said anything about leaving either. If either one of those are in their plans then why don't they come out and say it?

The city will own the arena outright. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Thunder would be locked in until 2050 ?

[PhiAlpha]

Guys I’m afraid it’s over for those of us who are for the arena. None other than highly esteemed astronaut, doctor, pilot, nascar driver turned representative George Santos has chimed in on the conversation in support of the opposition. The vote is doomed (sarcasm heavier than his “resume”).

THE BIG GUNS ARE OUT!

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahom...arena/46075691

[TheTravellers]

...
Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that.

I seriously doubt it would be that drastic, the Thunder didn't create everything over their tenure here all by their lonesome, and they're not going to turn their Mega Maid to "suck" mode and take all the new places/people/investments with them...

[Bill Robertson]

Completely disagree. If the vote turns out to be NO, then a state of depression will overtake a lot of folks. It happened when the National Finals Rodeo left for Vegas. If this arena build didn't come up, then you'd be paying a penny MAPS 5 take for the next six years.

Do you not remember how OKC sucked 25 years ago ? We could revert back to that.

Exactly! Take the Thunder out of the equation and it's still about OKC being a major city, or not, and having great things, or not. We should expect, and expect to pay for, great things. The penny tax may not ever go away so why not have one project paid for by that penny that's just fun! I might never go to another Thunder game but I'd like to have a world class concert venue. Which is why I voted YES!

[caaokc]

I’ve also seen a ton of sponsored ads from the yes campaign the last few days. No mailers this week.

[Cocaine]

The city will own the arena outright. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Thunder would be locked in until 2050 ?

Teams break leases all the time. Amd the thunder said they would agree to sign a lease until 2050 but nothing is binding them to it. They could leave once their current lease is up. Would you trust a gentlemen handshake? And I am being purposely obtuse in some ways because I don't think the thunder will leave if this fails. But people are acting all doom and gloom. The reality is even if the thunder sign on in a new a arena a lot of teams have left under similar circumstances. I will always reiterate that I think this will pass. But in say 6 years the city will have other priorities bigger than an arena how will the city raise funds to mitigate fixing those priorities.



Keep in mind that this is the 2nd best the opposition can do.. That's OKC for ya.

[Laramie]

Did he 'Santos' say 'stay queen.' Let's not forget why this former 'drag queen' got expelled from Congress for doing.

We don't need advice from a former public official who scammed his way into Congress. Run along 'Miss Thing.''

[Bill Robertson]

Odd thing I saw as I pulled out of the Election Board. A guy stopped by the Lincoln median and pulled up 2 "KEEP OKC BIG LEAGUE" signs and took them away. There were tons of signs so it wasn't a matter of trying to not have anyone see them. I wonder what he was doing?

[PhiAlpha]

I seriously doubt it would be that drastic, the Thunder didn't create everything over their tenure here all by their lonesome, and they're not going to turn their Mega Maid to "suck" mode and take all the new places/people/investments with them...

no but it will quickly silence much of the buzz that’s built up around the city for quite awhile. It may not mean much to some people but it would be enough ti make me reconsider whether I want to stay in OKC or OK long term in general.others here have said similar. The fact that we were on the rise and had a ton more of momentum when I graduated in 2010 was largely why I decided to stay here and the Thunder were a huge part of that. Hard to put a price on civic pride.