New Downtown Arena

[PhiAlpha]

I do pay yearly to go to the games and have for a number of years. Even though I would like the owners to pay more and each year the payment goes up.. I will vote to build a new arena. The biggest problem I have is inside the walkway is very crowded when going in and leaving after the game.

I did notice this more when paying attention to it on Tuesday night. It’s an issue on the first level though not as much since they were able to expand the footprint a bit but it’s really noticeable on the 200 and 300 levels.

[king183]

The Thunder absolutely will leave if they don't get a new arena. They would be complete idiots not to leave, especially with expansion of the league coming. Each of the markets under serious consideration for expansion are larger than OKC, have better media markets, have better sponsorship bases, etc, and therefore offer much great revenue opportunities. The entire point behind the new arena is to provide additional revenue streams that would somewhat make up for OKC's shortcomings compared to other markets. Yet, even with the new arena, we're still going to be among the smallest markets, smallest media markets, and smallest markets for sponsorship opportunities. So why doesn't the Thunder leave anyway, new arena or not, given they could make more money elsewhere? Because the NBA will never allow them to relocate if they've just won a new arena. If the vote fails, the ownership will immediately look for relocation/sale opportunities because they aren't idiots.

Some of the posters here think "a better deal is coming." That's absurd. OKC has no leverage here for the reasons above. There are 6 cities under consideration for expansion that are not only better markets revenue-wise, but they will also give the Thunder a free, new arena. If you don't understand that calculus, you don't understand how the business of the NBA works. And that's fine; just don't make up stuff based on sentimentalism or your fictional idea of how these deals work.

[Urbanized]

…I will vote to build a new arena. The biggest problem I have is inside the walkway is very crowded when going in and leaving after the game.

100%…crowded concourses - which also limit additional team/City revenue opportunities by limiting concessions space - are yet another issue the new building looks to mitigate.

I keep seeing anti-arena folks obsess on the loading dock situation as if it is the only thing lacking at Paycom. This is so far from the truth that it feels like a disinformation campaign. Paycom was built on a shoestring, and despite several nice mostly finish-type additions over the years (for instance drop ceilings replacing bare concrete rafters and terrazzo replacing bare concrete floors in the concourse) the building STILL lacks basic elements of even much older arenas.

First and foremost lacking is the square footage required to even make upgrades and updates in the future as changing event demands, league best practices and public tastes dictate. It also limits tenants (including the Thunder, but also non-Thunder events) operationally. Green rooms and other back-of-house spaces are still unfinished pipe and drape. Catering is done from a converted supply room.

Should the Thunder once again make the playoffs (they will; this season in fact) or the Western Conference Finals or heaven forbid the NBA Finals (reasonably good chance of this) they will presently have an awful time providing for the massive media influx that comes along with it. Last time we went deep in the playoffs many might recall the old Fred Jones Ford dealership site was taken over not by people attending games but instead by satellite trucks. The problem is that can no longer happen logistically due to the streetcar tracks (which didn’t exist when we were going to WCF and NBA Finals). Cables can’t be run across streetcar tracks.

So, move them to the vacated ODOT land south of the arena, you say? Well sure, that’s exactly what is being planned for. But use of that property in that manner precludes using it to fix the loading dock issue (as is suggested upthread) and DEFINITELY precludes fully implementing something like what was being planned as Thunder Alley (connected mixed use becoming a needed revenue stream for teams to keep up with rising costs).

One of the boards I sit on was addressed a couple of weeks ago by ASM Paycom Center GM Chris Semrau, and he made some very compelling comments related to some of the issues I just listed. He acknowledged the loading dock limitations, and their impact on bookings. But he also talked about cramped, utilitarian dressing rooms and how those things also contribute to bookings challenges.

He made the point that there are roughly 25 cities that will naturally get shows from a major tour, due to population, demographics, etc. We’re not competing with those cities for shows; they’re going to get them no matter what. If an artist does a 30 stop tour, we are competing for one of the five slots left, and we compete not just with Tulsa but with dozens of other cities of relatively similar size and demographics, many of whom have much nicer venues, and some of whom who have PLANNED arenas that will leave us in the dust. We’re also competing even with secondary venues in large MSAs, such as the gorgeous Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, where I saw the Black Keys several years ago.

He pointed out that at the end of the day artists are real people too, and if everything else is equal they’re going to tend toward the shiny place with spacious and luxurious performer amenities. Paycom is way down the pecking order when it comes to such things, and it’s actually an achievement they’re very proud of to have been such a high-achieving arena for concert bookings in 2022 (setting a building record) before the arena was closed for an extended period to install new seating and the new scoreboard, plus other improvements.

At the end of the day they are chasing their tails, however. The disparities will continue to widen, and the concourse never will. The investments we’ve made in Paycom to date have been good ones; continuing to invest in an an increasingly obsolete arena is a fool’s errand.

[Urbanized]

This past week I’ve been in Orlando on business, and while there on Saturday night I took in the Magic-Bucks game (I missed Milwaukee in my Thunder seat draft so this was possibly my only chance to see Giannis this year).

I’ve been to something like 10 other NBA arenas around the country since the Thunder came here (I enjoy going to away games for booth hoop and football), but I’d never paid THAT much attention to amenities or premium areas when visiting those places. I like to get nice seats when I go to away games, but they’re never the type that include premium access of any type.

Going to this game at Amway Center (built in 2010) I paid much more attention, due to this issue and the related conversation in this thread and elsewhere. I wouldn’t characterize Amway as overwhelmingly luxurious. Some of the finishes feel like they were done on a budget. But the sheer amount of existing premium spaces such as suites, boxes, etc., PLUS the square footage that would accommodate future upgrades, was night and day. It became quite obvious what additional square footage will unlock.

I wish I’d taken more photos, but I did snap a few in a hurry and will try to share them here.





As you can see, the premium areas just in the bowl are probably 2x what exist at Paycom, and can’t be replicated at any cost. Suites, boxes, they have tons.

And the concourses are massive, allowing for much easier updates and offerings expansions in the future. By the way, there are about four city blocks across the street leveled in anticipation of an apparent mixed use entertainment zone a la the Deer District at in Milwaukee.

It became PAINFULLY obvious to me how far behind even middling NBA markets, and why catching up and setting up for decades to come is the only way forward in order to maintain our status as an NBA facility and as a desirable concert market.

[April in the Plaza]

This past week I’ve been in Orlando on business, and while there on Saturday night I took in the Magic-Bucks game (I missed Milwaukee in my Thunder seat draft so this was possibly my only chance to see Giannis this year).

I’ve been to something like 10 other NBA arenas around the country since the Thunder came here (I enjoy going to away games for booth hoop and football), but I’d never paid THAT much attention to amenities or premium areas when visiting those places. I like to get nice seats when I go to away games, but they’re never the type that include premium access of any type.

Going to this game at Amway Center (built in 2010) I paid much more attention, due to this issue and the related conversation in this thread and elsewhere. I wouldn’t characterize Amway as overwhelmingly luxurious. Some of the finishes feel like they were done on a budget. But the sheer amount of existing premium spaces such as suites, boxes, etc., PLUS the square footage that would accommodate future upgrades, was night and day. It became quite obvious what additional square footage will unlock.

I wish I’d taken more photos, but I did snap a few in a hurry and will try to share them here.





As you can see, the premium areas just in the bowl are probably 2x what exist at Paycom, and can’t be replicated at any cost. Suites, boxes, they have tons.

And the concourses are massive, allowing for much easier updates and offerings expansions in the future. By the way, there are about four city blocks across the street leveled in anticipation of an apparent mixed use entertainment zone a la the Deer District at in Milwaukee.

It became PAINFULLY obvious to me how far behind even middling NBA markets, and why catching up and setting up for decades to come is the only way forward in order to maintain our status as an NBA facility and as a desirable concert market.

So realistically:

1) more lower bowl seats
2) significantly more suites and premium areas
3) significantly smaller loud city area

4) larger concourses (most of which will be open to the bowl)
5) more loading docks
6) higher face ticket prices for non-premium areas (due to less total seats)
7) more locker rooms, media areas, and flex spaces

Is that pretty fair?

[Cocaine]

Is there any—and I do mean any—evidence that a better deal would happen if we turn this one down? That there'd be a second (or third) chance at this?

I would rhetorically ask if you think the city leadership purposefully got (in your eyes) a bad deal and doesn't want what's best for the city, but you've basically gone on the record as thinking there's a conspiracy here to financially benefit the mayor and/or the construction companies, so... I got nothing.

Yes I'm am saying that I believe the mayor is conspiring with construction companies or other corporations that would benefit from $970 million in public money that would be spent on a new arena. Do you really think this isn't a trash deal especially when there are still a ton of questions about the future terms of a new lease the thunder would sign. Along with the fact that bankers will make a ton of money off of financing. Some people are about to get rich off the people of OKC. While we tie up tax funds for what was 72 additional months for this. Nothing suspicious about this deal at all.

[Dob Hooligan]

The Thunder absolutely will leave if they don't get a new arena. They would be complete idiots not to leave, especially with expansion of the league coming. Each of the markets under serious consideration for expansion are larger than OKC, have better media markets, have better sponsorship bases, etc, and therefore offer much great revenue opportunities. The entire point behind the new arena is to provide additional revenue streams that would somewhat make up for OKC's shortcomings compared to other markets. Yet, even with the new arena, we're still going to be among the smallest markets, smallest media markets, and smallest markets for sponsorship opportunities. So why doesn't the Thunder leave anyway, new arena or not, given they could make more money elsewhere? Because the NBA will never allow them to relocate if they've just won a new arena. If the vote fails, the ownership will immediately look for relocation/sale opportunities because they aren't idiots.

Some of the posters here think "a better deal is coming." That's absurd. OKC has no leverage here for the reasons above. There are 6 cities under consideration for expansion that are not only better markets revenue-wise, but they will also give the Thunder a free, new arena. If you don't understand that calculus, you don't understand how the business of the NBA works. And that's fine; just don't make up stuff based on sentimentalism or your fictional idea of how these deals work.

I'm voting yes, I want a new arena and I don't want the Thunder to move. But some of the "Thunder WILL move" talk is premature. The Thunder is the only major sports team in town. The NBA has grown and done incredibly well from being the only game in town. San Antonio, Orlando, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento and Portland have all done quite well as sole teams.

There are other cities available, but we need to look at how they are set up currently. The only city that quickly comes to mind that has zero leagues is Louisville. Seattle and Las Vegas will both have 3 leagues. Kansas City has NFL and MLB. Cities with only 1 league, like Columbus, which has NHL, are a problem, because they fight for dates and sponsorships.

Also, the NBA despises moving teams anymore. The Vancouver and Seattle moves made the NBA realize their teams are approaching the NFL in local popularity and the political and business risks are much higher than they used to be.

Also, the NBA does not want to give up any potential $3 billion expansion fee market to one of their own who can't make their team work where it already is.

[fortpatches]

So realistically:

1) more lower bowl seats
2) significantly more suites and premium areas
3) significantly smaller loud city area

4) larger concourses (most of which will be open to the bowl)
5) more loading docks
6) higher face ticket prices for non-premium areas (due to less total seats)
7) more locker rooms, media areas, and flex spaces

Is that pretty fair?

Is this new arena supposed to have fewer non-rich-person seating?

[April in the Plaza]

Is this new arena supposed to have fewer non-rich-person seating?

Yes, that’s the trend. You can see it pretty clearly if you compare the seating map of Paycom vs FiServ Forum

[Rover]

Yes, that’s the trend. You can see it pretty clearly if you compare the seating map of Paycom vs FiServ Forum

"rich person seating"

Rich people will have their seating regardless. I know rich people who sit in what I guess you would call poor people seating.

MANY of the seats you call "rich people seating" are bought by companies who give them to employees, customers, clients, etc. I don't understand this class designation.

Many more non-rich go to games than rich anyway. But then I am not sure who people consider "rich". In this context, it is just probably people who have better seats than the person calling them rich.

[Mississippi Blues]

I'm voting yes, I want a new arena and I don't want the Thunder to move. But some of the "Thunder WILL move" talk is premature. The Thunder is the only major sports team in town. The NBA has grown and done incredibly well from being the only game in town. San Antonio, Orlando, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento and Portland have all done quite well as sole teams.

There are other cities available, but we need to look at how they are set up currently. The only city that quickly comes to mind that has zero leagues is Louisville. Seattle and Las Vegas will both have 3 leagues. Kansas City has NFL and MLB. Cities with only 1 league, like Columbus, which has NHL, are a problem, because they fight for dates and sponsorships.

Also, the NBA despises moving teams anymore. The Vancouver and Seattle moves made the NBA realize their teams are approaching the NFL in local popularity and the political and business risks are much higher than they used to be.

Also, the NBA does not want to give up any potential $3 billion expansion fee market to one of their own who can't make their team work where it already is.

Well stated. This thread could be a psychological study on “rally ‘round the flag” syndrome.

[Mississippi Blues]

"rich person seating"

Rich people will have their seating regardless. I know rich people who sit in what I guess you would call poor people seating.

MANY of the seats you call "rich people seating" are bought by companies who give them to employees, customers, clients, etc. I don't understand this class designation.

Many more non-rich go to games than rich anyway. But then I am not sure who people consider "rich". In this context, it is just probably people who have better seats than the person calling them rich.

I will say, having sat everywhere between the assistants/trainers on the benches to the second to back row of the entire arena, the most expensive seats usually aren’t the best from a viewing perspective. The atmosphere is more engaging closer to the court, but being a fan of the game of basketball over the emotions of basketball, it’s hard to beat around the area where the stationary TV camera is set up.

[Bill Robertson]

I will say, having sat everywhere between the assistants/trainers on the benches to the second to back row of the entire arena, the most expensive seats usually aren’t the best from a viewing perspective. The atmosphere is more engaging closer to the court, but being a fan of the game of basketball over the emotions of basketball, it’s hard to beat around the area where the stationary TV camera is set up.

I agree. I had a former employer that had seats on the second row right across from the Thunder bench. We got to use them a few times. It was very cool getting to hear players yell back and forth. And I caught a couple errant passes and threw the ball back. Then there's the close parking, restaurant under the arena and the fact that you have anything you want brought to you during the game. But as far as watching the game I'd much rather be on the club level or lower rows of the upper level.

[king183]

I'm voting yes, I want a new arena and I don't want the Thunder to move. But some of the "Thunder WILL move" talk is premature. The Thunder is the only major sports team in town. The NBA has grown and done incredibly well from being the only game in town. San Antonio, Orlando, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento and Portland have all done quite well as sole teams.

There are other cities available, but we need to look at how they are set up currently. The only city that quickly comes to mind that has zero leagues is Louisville. Seattle and Las Vegas will both have 3 leagues. Kansas City has NFL and MLB. Cities with only 1 league, like Columbus, which has NHL, are a problem, because they fight for dates and sponsorships.

Also, the NBA despises moving teams anymore. The Vancouver and Seattle moves made the NBA realize their teams are approaching the NFL in local popularity and the political and business risks are much higher than they used to be.

Also, the NBA does not want to give up any potential $3 billion expansion fee market to one of their own who can't make their team work where it already is.

I’m not sure what other cities having other sports teams has anything to do with the conversation. Seattle and Las Vegas are almost guaranteed to be the 2 expansion teams when the NBA expands in a few years, despite having multiple sports teams. They are better markets than OKC right now because they have bigger and better revenue opportunities than OKC does.

The NBA despises moving teams, but that doesn’t mean they won’t, especially in 4 years when the Thunder are playing what will be the league’s worst arena with no prospects of getting a new one.

Finally, the NBA won’t have to give up $3 billion in expansion fees. As I said in my original post, there are 6 cities that are under serious consideration for expansion. The expansion will likely be limited to 2 cities, likely Seattle and Las Vegas. That doesn’t mean the other 4 cities are going to stop trying to find a way to get an NBA team. The NBA will get their cake and eat it too. As will the owners of the Thunder.

[Urbanized]

The Thunder absolutely will leave if they don't get a new arena. They would be complete idiots not to leave, especially with expansion of the league coming. Each of the markets under serious consideration for expansion are larger than OKC, have better media markets, have better sponsorship bases, etc, and therefore offer much great revenue opportunities. The entire point behind the new arena is to provide additional revenue streams that would somewhat make up for OKC's shortcomings compared to other markets. Yet, even with the new arena, we're still going to be among the smallest markets, smallest media markets, and smallest markets for sponsorship opportunities. So why doesn't the Thunder leave anyway, new arena or not, given they could make more money elsewhere? Because the NBA will never allow them to relocate if they've just won a new arena. If the vote fails, the ownership will immediately look for relocation/sale opportunities because they aren't idiots.

Some of the posters here think "a better deal is coming." That's absurd. OKC has no leverage here for the reasons above. There are 6 cities under consideration for expansion that are not only better markets revenue-wise, but they will also give the Thunder a free, new arena. If you don't understand that calculus, you don't understand how the business of the NBA works. And that's fine; just don't make up stuff based on sentimentalism or your fictional idea of how these deals work.

Amazing job of distilling the situation into a concise post; something I struggle to do. This post describes our situation more accurately than almost anything I've seen posted here.

Vote "YES" on December 12, and if you live in OKC (do you have OKC trash services? If so, you're an OKC resident) and are not registered to vote, you still have today and tomorrow to register in time for this election.

[Urbanized]

So realistically:

1) more lower bowl seats
2) significantly more suites and premium areas
3) significantly smaller loud city area

4) larger concourses (most of which will be open to the bowl)
5) more loading docks
6) higher face ticket prices for non-premium areas (due to less total seats)
7) more locker rooms, media areas, and flex spaces

Is that pretty fair?

1) This is TBD, but my personal opinion is that this is a possibility
2) Again TBD, but seems to be a certainty
3) TBD
4) Would clearly have to be the case, as this is a logical place to account for a lot of the additional square footage desired
5) Yes, as this is one of the very clear drivers behind the new building
6) TBD, but I doubt that this will be the case (for reasons I will detail below)
7) Seems likely

The reason I have said TBD on so much is due to the fact that these things really ARE just that; TBD. There will be national experts involved in the design, after the measure (hopefully) passes. After they are determined, and after the site location is finalized those questions will begin to be answered via various studies, recommendations, best practices and with an eye to the future. With the Thunder being locked in for the stated 25 year lease I think everyone involved will want to make certain that the building can be relatively easily adapted to emerging trends over the term of that lease.

Regarding the non-premium seat ticket price, I personally think it is unlikely that they will move significantly. Something that stuck out to me when the New Orleans Hornets arrived here in 2005 was the important role premium offerings play in keeping ticket prices reasonable for the typical fan. Since the Hornets were relocated abruptly due to Katrina and lost a lot of personnel to the disruption, NBA employees backfilled many team staffing roles. This gave a lot of community groups pretty unprecedented access to senior executives from the NBA for a bit. And the league wanted to get community groups up to speed as quickly as possible on the way the NBA operates, and why. One NBA VP we had at our meetings explained directly that seats like "Jack Nicholson seats" - front row stuff that's wildly expensive, plus suites and other premium areas - were incredibly important because it allowed other seats to be sold for prices that didn't make sense on a spreadsheet.

The NBA and the Thunder WANT games to be accessible. They WANT average Joes to be able to come to games. I really do believe that while overall team revenue can (and needs to) be greatly increased, it can come without pricing out non-premium attendees.

By the way, the Amway Center is 875,000 square feet. The LOI for the new OKC arena is 750K. Paycom is 581K.

[OkieBerto]

As someone who goes to the occasional game, most of the tickets I receive have already been bought and paid for. Mostly from my Clients or former Employers. Some will always have season tickets in good spots, but one of my clients gave up their season tickets and then rented out the Sonic Room for one game in order to give their management a free catered meal and game.

My favorite spot so fare to sit is usually up higher on the edge so you can see over the lower seats. The closer I got and the better the seats, the less I enjoyed the games.

[PhiAlpha]

The Thunder absolutely will leave if they don't get a new arena. They would be complete idiots not to leave, especially with expansion of the league coming. Each of the markets under serious consideration for expansion are larger than OKC, have better media markets, have better sponsorship bases, etc, and therefore offer much great revenue opportunities. The entire point behind the new arena is to provide additional revenue streams that would somewhat make up for OKC's shortcomings compared to other markets. Yet, even with the new arena, we're still going to be among the smallest markets, smallest media markets, and smallest markets for sponsorship opportunities. So why doesn't the Thunder leave anyway, new arena or not, given they could make more money elsewhere? Because the NBA will never allow them to relocate if they've just won a new arena. If the vote fails, the ownership will immediately look for relocation/sale opportunities because they aren't idiots.

Some of the posters here think "a better deal is coming." That's absurd. OKC has no leverage here for the reasons above. There are 6 cities under consideration for expansion that are not only better markets revenue-wise, but they will also give the Thunder a free, new arena. If you don't understand that calculus, you don't understand how the business of the NBA works. And that's fine; just don't make up stuff based on sentimentalism or your fictional idea of how these deals work.

all of this

[Laramie]

I've been searching for information on the new arena and haven't seen any LOI (Letter of Intent) on specifications. I'm
would think the new will have nothing less than 750k, preferably more if we're being asked to approve a new $900 million venue.

if anyone has discovered any specifications or information concerning the new arena, please share.

[pw405]

I don't like the deal. I don't like funding sports arenas with public dollars. I don't like billionaire welfare. I don't watch the Thunder. (I used to, though). In fact, I don't like or watch sports of any kind. (I know, not a typical Oklahoman.)

But, I'm voting YES.

While this may seem confusing initially, I think of the issue like this. The election, as measured in terms of outcomes is:

1. Sales tax unchanged + new arena + Thunder for X years.
2. -1% Sales tax.

That's it. Those are the options.

While, sure, some other package/plan/program could be worked up to fill the 1% margin of available tax rate we've grown accustomed to over the last few decades...
Realistically - in the current political environment - that's DOA.

Heck, Holt's own party would probably launch attack ads against him: "COMMUNIST RINO COMRADE-HOLT WANTS MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY FOR BIG MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT!"

[Cocaine]

So you’re saying if we vote no that I’m 2028 the sales tax will go away? That the city wouldn’t propose another maps. And there wouldn’t be any other attempts try and pass a different funding an arena. ������ dang thao diens really buy into anything.

[chssooner]

1) This is TBD, but my personal opinion is that this is a possibility
2) Again TBD, but seems to be a certainty
3) TBD
4) Would clearly have to be the case, as this is a logical place to account for a lot of the additional square footage desired
5) Yes, as this is one of the very clear drivers behind the new building
6) TBD, but I doubt that this will be the case (for reasons I will detail below)
7) Seems likely

The reason I have said TBD on so much is due to the fact that these things really ARE just that; TBD. There will be national experts involved in the design, after the measure (hopefully) passes. After they are determined, and after the site location is finalized those questions will begin to be answered via various studies, recommendations, best practices and with an eye to the future. With the Thunder being locked in for the stated 25 year lease I think everyone involved will want to make certain that the building can be relatively easily adapted to emerging trends over the term of that lease.

Regarding the non-premium seat ticket price, I personally think it is unlikely that they will move significantly. Something that stuck out to me when the New Orleans Hornets arrived here in 2005 was the important role premium offerings play in keeping ticket prices reasonable for the typical fan. Since the Hornets were relocated abruptly due to Katrina and lost a lot of personnel to the disruption, NBA employees backfilled many team staffing roles. This gave a lot of community groups pretty unprecedented access to senior executives from the NBA for a bit. And the league wanted to get community groups up to speed as quickly as possible on the way the NBA operates, and why. One NBA VP we had at our meetings explained directly that seats like "Jack Nicholson seats" - front row stuff that's wildly expensive, plus suites and other premium areas - were incredibly important because it allowed other seats to be sold for prices that didn't make sense on a spreadsheet.

The NBA and the Thunder WANT games to be accessible. They WANT average Joes to be able to come to games. I really do believe that while overall team revenue can (and needs to) be greatly increased, it can come without pricing out non-premium attendees.

By the way, the Amway Center is 875,000 square feet. The LOI for the new OKC arena is 750K. Paycom is 581K.

If it's only 750k square feet, I'm voting no. Wayyyyyy too limiting.

[caaokc]

I think the LOI states a minimum of 750k square feet, so don’t be surprised if it’s bigger.

[Laramie]

I think the LOI states a minimum of 750k square feet, so don’t be surprised if it’s bigger.

Fiserv Forum (Milwaukee) 714,000 square feet, Chase Center (San Francisco) 900,000 square feet and Intuit Dome )Los Angeles Clippers) 915,000 square feet.

Haven't seen any specifications on square feet for the proposed $900 million Oklahoma City Downtown Arena on any city sites.

[caaokc]

I think the LOI states a minimum of 750k square feet, so don’t be surprised if it’s bigger.

Holt said this in a podcast interview with Jenni Carlson recently