New Downtown Arena

[PhiAlpha]

^

If this is voted down it's not like the Thunder would just pull up stakes and leave.

It would force all involved to actually negotiate in a public way and we would almost certainly still end up keeping the team and building a new arena, just on more favorable terms to taxpayers.


I don't expect any of that to happen, but again this shouldn't be and is not the binary choice being presented.

In your honest opinion...if this is voted down, do you think that is actually how it would play out?

[PhiAlpha]

Look i love the Thunder. I am a season ticket holder. But this deal sucks. And having one person who is willing to point out, "this deal sucks" is a value add to our democracy. OKC has rarely made good decisions when the prevailing "go along to get along" mindset is in full swing. Vote in favor if you want to (most will), but not sure why an elected official deserves vitriol for pointing out the obvious (this deal is less generous to OKC taxpayers than similar deals in similar cities, the whole thing was designed in secret, etc.).

Yeah I just don't like her in general and let that get the best of me yesterday. I will vote in favor of the proposal but you are right. No one should get destroyed for having an alternate opinion though how she frames it will be key to how well it's received and how helpful it will be to changing the process in the future.

[PhiAlpha]

I understand that many are not happy with how the process works, but using the arena and the possibility of losing the Thunder isn't really a great hill to die on to get changes made. Just my opinion. There are ways to affect change but losing something that has been such a great thing for OKC is really short sided. Plus, I know in certain circles it's pretty standard to just hate pro sports teams owners on general principle. However, the Thunder ownership group have been fantastic stewards for the city and the state. There are a lot of really crappy owners out there, but the Thunder are definitely on the opposite end of the spectrum. From the beginning they went out of their way to get a team for OKC. When they bought the team, everyone said they paid double of what they should have paid. They girded for a PR battle and a civic battle that was years in the making and took a great deal of fortitude to complete to get the team here.

While a debate can certainly be made that how pro sports work is a backwards system, it's what you have to pay to play at this point. It would only be to OKC's detriment to be the ones to stand up to the system and make an example out of an ownership group that is one of the least deserving of it.

Agree 100%

[Richard at Remax]

Pretty interesting to see that people are in agreement with TIF by saying "well if they didn't do it, then that land would not generate any $$$" to being against this only cause there are wealthy owners involved. Should they probably pay more? Probably.

I don't know exact terms but currently I think the thunder pay annual rent of $1,640,000 annually. Plus the economic impact of each game is night and day vs when there wasn't a team here. Here is excerpt from espn article, which is probably overstatement of impact but if it was even half that it would be inpressive:

"The city's news release cited a study that estimated the Thunder's annual economic impact at $600 million with 3,000 jobs created. The Thunder have played in the 21-year-old Paycom Center since moving to Oklahoma City in 2008. The franchise's long-term agreement to stay in Oklahoma City expired earlier this year, but the Thunder exercised a short-term extension while participating in the arena planning process." https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...p-thunder-2050

Welcome to the big leagues folks. This happens in every city.

[Pete]

In your honest opinion...if this is voted down, do you think that is actually how it would play out?

Of course.

These are all OKC guys who bought the team in Seattle, staged a long-playing rouse about wanting to keep the team there, and then promptly moved them to OKC. All of them are very invested in the economic development of Oklahoma City. They've seen their initial investment multiply many fold and it will only continue to do so, even with a slightly less favorable arena deal than is now presented.

This isn't exactly an Al Davis situation.

[Richard at Remax]

Yeah I just don't like her in general and let that get the best of me yesterday. I will vote in favor of the proposal but you are right. No one should get destroyed for having an alternate opinion though how she frames it will be key to how well it's received and how helpful it will be to changing the process in the future.

I don't mind her. The problem is that whenever a news story is on and they talk about someone from the city council objection or having a different opinion to a certain matter, 1000% of the time it's her lol. You don't have to be on the opposite side of every issue and I feel that is her MO.

[MagzOK]

LOL, already started here as it will pour out into the community: "How can you be a supposed AVID Thunder fan and not support this." LOL. That is anything BUT an argument to try and get someone change their minds. Sad really. Save the shaming for your kids.

The ownership only providing $50M to a $900M project is a laugh. I could certainly support a plan if a better formula was presented. Jerryworld, a $1.5B stadium, Arlington paid $325 of that using a formula of bonds and different types of tax increases with the Cowboys paying for the rest including using a $150M loan from the NFL. Allegiant stadium in Las Vegas -- $2B, paid for by $750M public funding and the rest -- over a billion dollars -- paid for by the Raiders organization. All this being said, the Thunder only throwing in $50M just won't work for me.

[PhiAlpha]

They would have plenty of time to work out a deal and I don't believe for a minute they would just throw up their hands and sell.

Best case, the new arena wouldn't be open until around 2030. Assuming 2 years for construction, that allows for almost five years until work would need to start.

Seattle thought the same thing about Howard Shultz and his ownership group. He was a favorite son of Seattle, had much more money in his ownership group than we do and took one crack at it getting Key Arena expanded and then sold the team. Obviously a lot of other factors were at play including the passage of I-91 that prohibited any additional public funding from being used on sports venues after the Key Arena expansion vote failed (though it I-91 passed several months after Shultz sold to Bennett, I'm sure he had wind of it), but at the end of the day no one thought he would sell to out of state owners after the vote failed...he did...and 2 years later the team was here.

[PhiAlpha]

I don't mind her. The problem is that whenever a news story is on and they talk about someone from the city council objection or having a different opinion to a certain matter, 1000% of the time it's her lol. You don't have to be on the opposite side of every issue and I feel that is her MO.

Yeah, that's why I don't like her lol.

[PhiAlpha]

Of course.

These are all OKC guys who bought the team in Seattle, staged a long-playing rouse about wanting to keep the team there, and then promptly moved them to OKC. All of them are very invested in the economic development of Oklahoma City. They've seen their initial investment multiply many fold and it will only continue to do so, even with a slightly less favorable arena deal than is now presented.

This isn't exactly an Al Davis situation.

No, but again it isn't far from being a Howard Schultz situation.

[Pete]

I'd bet dollars to donuts this project ends up being well north of $1B -- especially once the tax collections inevitably exceed the original estimate by a substantial margin (they always do) and you factor in the value of the land and other things.

Another huge problem with this process is that we only get a continuous stream of propaganda from one side. The Mayor basically serves as a one-man PR firm for things exactly as they are ultimately presented without even a hint of objective full analysis of how other cities and teams have structured their deals.

And this is why the secrecy is so toxic. The one person in full possession of the facts is as biased as any person can be. It's the same way with TIF and other economic incentives: We are only hearing from someone who very, very much wants something approved -- in fact, their entire political future or compensation is based on exactly that.


JoBeth and Ed Shadid could certainly be better about the way they went about things but it's also true they have been branded as villains for merely doing their job and actually asking informed questions and raising important issues.

[MagzOK]

Bingo, Pete. Spot on.

[Urbanized]

^

If this is voted down it's not like the Thunder would just pull up stakes and leave.

It would force all involved to actually negotiate in a public way and we would almost certainly still end up keeping the team and building a new arena, just on more favorable terms to taxpayers...

Strongly disagree with this assessment. If this doesn’t pass they won’t pick up stakes but they WILL sell the team. That will be the only way for them to maximize their investment. And whoever they sell to would give ****all about working through a long process to keep the team in OKC; in fact they’ll probably be buying with the express intent of moving it to THEIR city.

[Pete]

Strongly disagree with this assessment. If this doesn’t pass they won’t pick up stakes but they WILL sell the team. That will be the only way for them to maximize their investment. And whoever they sell to would give ****all about working through a long process to keep the team in OKC; in fact they’ll probably be buying with the express intent of moving it to THEIR city.

I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

This is not one multi-billionaire who doesn't want the hassle. This is a relatively large group who went through a lot of trouble and out-right manipulation to move the team to OKC and I seriously doubt all of them would just want to sell all their shares and walk away.

[PhiAlpha]

LOL, already started here as it will pour out into the community: "How can you be a supposed AVID Thunder fan and not support this." LOL. That is anything BUT an argument to try and get someone change their minds. Sad really. Save the shaming for your kids.

The ownership only providing $50M to a $900M project is a laugh. I could certainly support a plan if a better formula was presented. Jerryworld, a $1.5B stadium, Arlington paid $325 of that using a formula of bonds and different types of tax increases with the Cowboys paying for the rest including using a $150M loan from the NFL. Allegiant stadium in Las Vegas -- $2B, paid for by $750M public funding and the rest -- over a billion dollars -- paid for by the Raiders organization. All this being said, the Thunder only throwing in $50M just won't work for me.

That wasn't shaming and now you're deflecting. I asked you a question that you dodged so I'll ask again:

You and your friends are supposedly avid Thunder fans. A no vote and failure to pass this proposal invites the possibility, maybe even the certainty, that the team will relocate without the public even being given the opportunity to vote on what you hope would be a better proposal (they certainly would start getting unsolicited offers from potential ownership groups in other cities if they haven't already)...

Is your complaint with ownership not financing more of the total cost worth the possibility of losing the team when the only cost to you is having to continue paying an additional 72 months of the same sales tax you've paid, for what I'm guessing is the entirety of however much of your adult life you've spent in OKC?

If you knew that team was definitely going to relocate, does that change your answer?

[PhiAlpha]

I'd bet dollars to donuts this project ends up being well north of $1B -- especially once the tax collections inevitably exceed the original estimate by a substantial margin (they always do) and you factor in the value of the land and other things.

Another huge problem with this process is that we only get a continuous stream of propaganda from one side. The Mayor basically serves as a one-man PR firm for things exactly as they are ultimately presented without even a hint of objective full analysis of how other cities and teams have structured their deals.

And this is why the secrecy is so toxic. The one person in full possession of the facts is as biased as any person can be. It's the same way with TIF and other economic incentives: We are only hearing from someone who very, very much wants something approved -- in fact, their entire political future or compensation is based on exactly that.


JoBeth and Ed Shadid could certainly be better about the way they went about things but it's also true they have been branded as villains for merely doing their job and actually asking informed questions and raising important issues.

I would argue that Ed was branded a villain because he went on a full on offensive campaign against MAPS to the point the he was trying to get it repealed after the public voted yes on it, he wasn't just asking important questions. JoBeth has been much better in that regard so far but I guess we'll see how it plays out from here.

[PhiAlpha]

I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

This is not one multi-billionaire who doesn't want the hassle. This is a relatively large group who went through a lot of trouble and out-right manipulation to move the team to OKC and I seriously doubt all of them would just want to sell all their shares and walk away.

Schultz was the majority owner but there were something like 58 other owners in that group. Obviously that situation is different than 7-8 guys with more equal shares but there are similarities.

I will say that probably the most vocal owner and biggest OKC proponent of the group that pushed the relocation along with Bennett is dead and Tom Ward, who thought along the same lines as he did and had a similar desire to improve OKC, is also no longer an owner. George Kaiser's doesn't even live here. I'll agree that we don't have as much exposure as they did but we do still have some.

[Pete]

[/B]
I would argue that Ed was branded a villain because he went on a full on offensive campaign against MAPS to the point the he was trying to get it repealed after the public voted yes on it, he wasn't just asking important questions. JoBeth has been much better in that regard so far but I guess we'll see how it plays out from here.

You and I both know that if you question the establishment in OKC, you get crucified.

And that was happening long before the extreme polarization that has now become part of our national fabric.


That is a scary thing in a democracy and we are talking about billions and billions of tax dollars being allocated in this way.

This arena thing is just another in a very long line.

I'm not even necessarily against approving the deal but once this process is established you also have to accept there are lots of things that get pushed through that shouldn't. We want to be a Big League City but in many ways we are still behaving like Gotebo.

[Richard at Remax]

I will say, for those Arlington and Las Vegas examples, NFL stadiums are a whole other machine. Building those gets you final fours, super bowls, ect that have exponentially higher returns and impacts. Nashville is contributing 1.26 billion to their new stadium which will most likely bring in those two big events. I think the owners are kicking in the rest of the 1 billion. I imagine that's a 10 year payout lol

[Pete]

I will say, for those Arlington and Las Vegas examples, NFL stadiums are a whole other machine. Building those gets you final fours, super bowls, ect that have exponentially higher returns and impacts. Nashville is contributing 1.26 billion to their new stadium which will most likely bring in those two big events. I think the owners are kicking in the rest of the 1 billion. I imagine that's a 10 year payout lol

As has been pointed out, a much better example is Milwaukee's Fiserve Arena.

Compare this to our deal:

Public, private money financed the $524 million arena

Then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker included a provision to borrow $220 million to help finance a new arena in his 2015-'17 state budget proposal. Legislative Republicans rejected that and worked with local officials to craft a new $250 million plan − with the Bucks providing $274 million (with $100 million of that amount from former owner Herb Kohl).

[Urbanized]

I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

This is not one multi-billionaire who doesn't want the hassle. This is a relatively large group who went through a lot of trouble and out-right manipulation to move the team to OKC and I seriously doubt all of them would just want to sell all their shares and walk away.

It’s the only way they’ll ever draw true ROI on their investment. Everyone talks about how wealthy they are, and (I believe) assumes they make money hand over fist currently. The facts of the matter are that each envestor probably receives a relatively meager income from the team, but I don’t believe this to be the case. Team revenue is light years different from team value.

The building they’re in only makes this more difficult, and the long term outlook at Paycom would most likely eventually put them in the red. Very similar to the situation Seattle was in.

They have also had brushes with mortality. One of their biggest drivers, Aubrey, died terribly. And Clay had a very serious health issue. Who knows where that is, or when it might return.

I don’t have any specific insight to this, But I’ve become convinced that they will sell the team soon either way. WITH a new building and a 25 year lease, or without. The first makes them money in a way that operating revenue will never even get a sniff of, but it would also be the solidifying of an amazing gift they gave the city in 2008. Legacy stuff.

The second way still allows them to make the true end-game ROI on a 20 year investment, but the team will ultimately leave. Take that to the bank.

[OkieHornet]

if this vote passes in dec 2023 i think they plan on being in the new area in 2027 or sooner

From previous posts:
"The City and the Thunder agree that their intent is to open the arena in time for the 2029-2030 NBA season, if not sooner."

[Anonymous.]

Pretty interesting to see that people are in agreement with TIF by saying "well if they didn't do it, then that land would not generate any $$$" to being against this only cause there are wealthy owners involved. Should they probably pay more? Probably.

I don't know exact terms but currently I think the thunder pay annual rent of $1,640,000 annually. Plus the economic impact of each game is night and day vs when there wasn't a team here. Here is excerpt from espn article, which is probably overstatement of impact but if it was even half that it would be inpressive:

"The city's news release cited a study that estimated the Thunder's annual economic impact at $600 million with 3,000 jobs created. The Thunder have played in the 21-year-old Paycom Center since moving to Oklahoma City in 2008. The franchise's long-term agreement to stay in Oklahoma City expired earlier this year, but the Thunder exercised a short-term extension while participating in the arena planning process." https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...p-thunder-2050

Welcome to the big leagues folks. This happens in every city.

I wonder if this figure is even taking into account the taxes that we receive for having all of these ultra-rich athletes living here playing games, and also visiting athletes coming through. Every time the CBA contracts go up in value, every city and state that hosts professional sports teams get a raise. This is just another reason why places like California and Texas have huge tax dollar advantages with all of their pro teams.

Losing the NBA in OKC would easily be the worst non-life ending event to happen to the city.

Honestly, the ownership likely could have put up zero money and nothing would change - OKC is held hostage in this situation, but that is okay because that is what we have to do. Yes, the [non] public process of the deal structure and the political theatrics to present the situation as Yes or No is super crappy, but as another poster said, that isn't the hill to die on.

[shai2022]

I was asked my opinion and I gave it.

This is not one multi-billionaire who doesn't want the hassle. This is a relatively large group who went through a lot of trouble and out-right manipulation to move the team to OKC and I seriously doubt all of them would just want to sell all their shares and walk away.

This is a business not a charity. If this doesn't pass ownership cashes out as expansion looms and valuations skyrocket.

As you said, its not one multi-billionaire, but a collection of guys who all want their piece of the pie. Think that aspect hurts more than helps in the prospect that the proposal fails.

It also isn't the same ownership group that brought the team here which is a huge aspect that doesn't get discussed. Kaiser isn't doing this out of his love for OKC I can promise you that.

[Pete]

It’s the only way they’ll ever draw true ROI on their investment.

Completely untrue. There is positive cash flow from the operations (likely to increase with this new arena deal which is why they want it) and much more importantly, they can borrow against their equity just like any other asset.

This is what rich people do. They don't sell their assets -- especially those that are rapidly appreciating -- they leverage them and then go buy more.