New Downtown Arena

[Urbanized]

Double post

[MagzOK]

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?

Deflecting? Amid being called a "supposed Avid Thunder fan" I provided big time examples of other teams and venues and contributing parties.

In terms of continuing a tax -- driving around this city for less than an hour, I can find so many things that the funds from a tax continuation could help rather than building a second arena downtown; a second arena. We're not talking about building our first arena or replacing a +50 year old arena like the the Norick. But in terms of the Thunder like I said, I'm certainly open to it given the team provide more funding than that of the current proposed fraction. And yes, though I'd be incredibly disappointed if they left, in fact it would be a sad day if they did so, but I'm tired of these teams holding these cities hostage with threats of leaving if you don't pay up. Some do leave, but more don't because they return to the bargaining table.

Again, with a better formula presented, sure I could certainly be in favor.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

I'll take your word for it because I wasn't paying attention nearly as much before he went nuclear on MAPS but in general agree with how similar issues have been handled since then.

[PhiAlpha]

Deflecting? Amid being called a "supposed Avid Thunder fan" I provided big time examples of other teams and venues and contributing parties.

In terms of continuing a tax -- driving around this city for less than an hour, I can find so many things that the funds from a tax continuation could help rather than building a second arena downtown; a second arena. We're not talking about building our first arena or replacing a +50 year old arena like the the Norick. But in terms of the Thunder like I said, I'm certainly open to it given the team provide more funding than that of the current proposed fraction. And yes, though I'd be incredibly disappointed if they left, in fact it would be a sad day if they did so, but I'm tired of these teams holding these cities hostage with threats of leaving if you don't pay up. Some do leave, but more don't because they return to the bargaining table.

Again, with a better formula presented, sure I could certainly be in favor.

Fine, I should've left it at "dodging" my question lol. Thank you for answering

[PoliSciGuy]

Believe it or not, it is possible to both be a big Thunder fan and be against this deal

[Pete]

Believe it or not, it is possible to both be a big Thunder fan and be against this deal

Or simply demand a fair public process that results in something much more like Milwaukee (where ownership paid for more than half the arena) than the current deal that is proposed.

[MagzOK]

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

I can certainly agree with this. My point is that there's more of a chip-in by the ownerships than a mere $50M slap in the face.

[Dob Hooligan]

But what do we really know and what do we think we know? The devil is always in the details. I mentioned before that the Milwaukee deal included $100 million from Herb Kohl that he was gonna owe in taxes anyway.

What do we know about the rent the Bucks pay? What if the Bucks pay $1 per game and keep 100% of all food & beverage for any event in the facility? Still a great deal for the community? What are the Thunder gonna pay in rent, upkeep and F&B revenue split?

I think people we elect to run out city have spent thousands of hours working through all the angles and have come to this conclusion. I might want more info, but I don't want to stop the presses because I'm riding some hobby horse grievance.

[Pete]

I can certainly agree with this. My point is that there's more of a chip-in by the ownerships than a mere $50M slap in the face.

Again, I will post this deal the Bucks made to build Fiserv Arena where the ownership paid for more than half. Reminder that Milwaukee is almost exactly the same size as OKC and this all worked out pretty well for all involved as the Bucks recently won the NBA championship.

Also note the original plan was rejected by the legislature and everyone went back to the table to figure things out.

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).

Of $203 million from Wisconsin, $55 million was funded directly by the state, with another $55 million provided by reducing Milwaukee County's annual share of state revenue over several years.

The remaining $93 million came from the Wisconsin Center District, the state-created agency which operates the expanding Baird Center convention facility, UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena and Miller High Life Theatre. The district's funding includes county taxes on hotel rooms, restaurant meals and car rentals.

The state funding package, which gained bipartisan support in the Legislature, included a $2 surcharge on tickets for events at Fiserv Forum, which the Wisconsin Center District owns and leases to the Bucks.

Finally, the city provided $47 million from two tax incremental financing districts with the county selling vacant land in the Park East strip to the Bucks for $1.

[chssooner]

Whatever the Thunder's rent is, can also be counted as ownership/club input until 2050. Having an anchor tenant is huge when building an arena, as it guarantees a certain number of dates will be full. Not sure what that will be, however.

[OkieinGeorgia]

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.

I think this is important. They want to get that new arena and a long term agreement before they punch out. Solidifying the team in OKC long term definitely leaves the legacy and will give them the comfort they need before they sell.

What this ownership group does in a small market is pretty amazing. While they aren't funding their own arena, what they ARE doing is spending very generously and running the team in a way to keep it competitive and they are setting up for another cycle of a run towards a possible championship. Ask Arizona Cardinal fans what they would give for an ownership group that isn't afraid to keep the team competitive. There are so many pro sports owners that know they will get their profits without having to be successful. The Thunder ownership group has never been afraid to spend when they think it'll translate to a more successful team. They have a rock solid long term plan and have invested to keep Sam Presti and keep this franchise relevant. That is a tall order in a small market. They continue to be committed to that despite what it costs and what it takes.

Again, I hear what Pete and others are saying about how backwards OKC's civic process is, but I just don't think the Thunder are the organization that needs to be the test case on suddenly trying to fix that.

[chssooner]

Again, I will post this deal the Bucks made to build Fiserv Arena where the ownership paid for more than half. Reminder that Milwaukee is almost exactly the same size as OKC and this all worked out pretty well for all involved as the Bucks recently won the NBA championship:

The Brewers are also pissing off the entire state of Wisconsin with their requests, so the Bucks definitely saw that. Perks of OKC having minimal leverage. This franchise has already moved cities once because they didn't get their way. Nothing to stop the owners from selling to a group and leaving OKC with nothing but their you know what in their hands.

Not saying they definitely would, but it has happened, and very recently with the same franchise. We benefitted once, and could be punished on the rebound. The precedent is set.

Yes, I would 100% have preferred an open door meeting or two to discuss, for sure. But doesn't change the fact a new arena is needed, and having full control of the asset is always nice. The city gets to sell the Paycom Center and site for a hefty profit, as well.

Just my opinion, as one citizen who will be voting yes and continue paying an extra penny towards a new arena every time I shop.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

Exactly and you don't have people there like Aubrey who are massive vocal proponents of the city that have spent tons of time and money (though not always his in Aubrey's case) trying to bring new attractions and amenities to the city. I won't pretend to know Clay Bennett but talked to him for about 10 minutes about what they went through moving the team here over a beer at he and Aubrey's tailgate for the Notre Dame OU game up in Southbend (though it was after playing OU vs ND team flip cup at the same tailgate so the conversation is a bit hazy lol).

I came away thinking that he genuinely loves OKC, is incredibility proud of the fact that they got a team here and went through some incredible lengths to get the deal done so he probably falls into the same category as Aubrey (albeit less vocal) but what about everyone else in the group now? Do they care enough to keep pushing if this doesn't pass or will they throw their hands up and sell? Honestly have no idea.

[Pete]

The central point is, at the very outset there should have been a public committee established to look at what other cities have done, develop best practices, and then go from there.

Instead, we have the Mayor dealing directly with the ownership group behind closed doors for at least two years then merely dumping a "take it or they'll leave" fully-formed proposal on the ballot that results in the OKC taxpayers basically paying for the whole thing.

And now comes the group-think and extreme rhetoric of the mob to tell you that if we don't completely accept objectively unfair terms exactly as the owners want them without any real negotiation, they will immediately sell the team -- even though at the same time we are to believe they have been great stewards and want what is best for OKC.


No matter what side of this you are on, any rational thinker has to see how completely messed up this is.

[irishtate]

I completely agree. All I seem to hear is people gripe about this "1 Cent" sales tax which would probably be more accurately described as a "1 Percent" sales tax. meaning if you buy a $500 TV, you'll pay ~$5..... big whoop. Get over it people. Nice things take time and money. I'd rather continue to pay a 'temporary' sales tax forever and take 2 steps forward, than take a step back as a city.

[Urbanized]

I just don’t understand the constant implications that there is something scurrilous at work here. In this case they were talking about a purpose-built arena to house a tenant with very specific needs. The City had to find out what those needs were, and figure out if they can even find a way to meet them.

Next, they have to have attorneys look over everything and make sure there aren’t legal pitfalls for either party. Neither of these things can (or ever will) happen in open meetings. Nor should they. Going down a list of AV needs, locker room requirements, square footage needs, security specifications, all in public meetings before even deciding whether or not there is a financial mechanism that would allow it? What a ridiculous-sounding nightmare.

Next, a tentative deal is announced, and the proposal is taken to council, where they get their day in the sun and and are subject to a public process. Literally ANYONE can speak on this topic at council, simply by going to the meeting and signing up. After hearing all of the proposed details, a publicly-elected body then votes on whether it should even be moved to a ballot for public consideration.

Then they go to the public for a vote. Direct democracy at work.

I think the suggestion that the process is nefarious is wrong and disingenuous. And on social media, it often devolves into slander. The folks at the City who have been working on this are good people, public servants, trying to do the best thing for their community after being elected, appointed or otherwise hired to do exactly that.

[Pete]

I just don’t understand the constant implications that there is something scurrilous at work here. In this case they were talking about a purpose-built arena to house a tenant with very specific needs. The City had to find out what those needs were, and figure out if they can find a way to meet them.

There is zero reason this couldn't have been done in an open way.

[April in the Plaza]

The central point is, at the very outset there should have been a public committee established to look at what other cities have done, develop best practices, and then go from there.

Instead, we have the Mayor dealing directly with the ownership group behind closed doors for at least two years then merely dumping a "take it or they'll leave" fully-formed proposal on the ballot that results in the OKC taxpayers basically paying for the whole thing.

And now comes the group-think and extreme rhetoric of the mob to tell you that if we don't completely accept objectively unfair terms exactly as the owners want them without any real negotiation, they will immediately sell the team -- even though at the same time we are to believe they have been great stewards and want what is best for OKC.


No matter what side of this you are on, any rational thinker has to see how completely messed up this is.

This is beautifully said. I’m pretty surprised that so many folks think that Holt negotiated an amazing deal for the City and its taxpayers.

Far from it.

[Urbanized]

The City will never, ever have the upper hand in negotiations with an NBA tenant.

[Pete]

This is beautifully said. I’m pretty surprised that so many folks think that Holt negotiated an amazing deal for the City and its taxpayers.

Far from it.

This is not at all personal towards Mayor Holt, it's merely his position and the way these huge public subsidies have been handled by OKC up until now.

BUT, he has absolutely everything to gain from being seen as the architect of keeping the Thunder and nothing to lose. This is not his money. It won't even come out of the City's budget and detract from other things he wants to accomplish.

The mere fact he ONLY talks in terms of why this is needed with absolutely zero context in terms of peer cities demonstrates his total lack of objectivity.

[Pete]

The City will never, ever have the upper hand in negotiations with an NBA tenant.

You don't need an upper hand to get the same deal most other cities are getting.

As things are, we are lightyears from that.

[BDP]

Yeah this is a bad deal. I really feel like the ownership and the NBA should poney up 200 million and the rest is paid for by the city.

If they paid $200 million, that would be about 22% of this initial $900 million estimate.

They use the arena about 12% of available dates of the year. So, should they still pay rent? Do they get equity in the arena and revenue share for all other events? I assume they would need something more than just basketball operations to service their debt on the $200 million, as well.

One thing that we never really know about when team ownership and private investment participates in arena construction is how they're financing their end. Like with Sofi, I'm pretty sure the NFL lent them some of the money, but nowhere near all of it. I'm not even sure how much the private end of these deals are made public. In the Milwaukee example, I have no idea how the private side is / was financed.

As for the way the campaign for has approached it, I am surprised how much of it is Thunder-centric. That is, it's been pretty much 100% a Thunder deal, and, yet, there is a lot more to it than just the NBA and we've been assuming (or at least I have) that it would have public facing amenities and services that would operate separate from the Thunder and be accessible without a ticket to the games.

The lack of transparency and trickle of information supported by superlatives and not tangibles does seem to be hurting the slam dunk assumption the campaign has been operating under since the first teasing announcement
was made about the project.

[Pete]

Look, even in sports (as in every single business on the planet) the money involved is based on the best data available, not just some arbitrary back-room deals without any points of reference.

Every single team sale or contract negotiation starts and ends with data from the market: What are the comparables?

In fact, it's how we arrived at this $1B price tag; Holt kept mentioning new arenas in other markets at that price point then lo and behold, that became our budget.


What is never mentioned is where that money came from for those comparable arenas.

Why is this completely omitted? Instead, all we get are threats about selling the team, completely leaving the city, etc.

[PhiAlpha]

If they paid $200 million, that would be about 22% of this initial $900 million estimate.

They use the arena about 12% of available dates of the year. So, should they still pay rent? Do they get equity in the arena and revenue share for all other events? I assume they would need something more than just basketball operations to service their debt on the $200 million, as well.

One thing that we never really know about when team ownership and private investment participates in arena construction is how they're financing their end. Like with Sofi, I'm pretty sure the NFL lent them some of the money, but nowhere near all of it. I'm not even sure how much the private end of these deals are made public. In the Milwaukee example, I have no idea how the private side is / was financed.

As for the way the campaign for has approached it, I am surprised how much of it is Thunder-centric. That is, it's been pretty much 100% a Thunder deal, and, yet, there is a lot more to it than just the NBA and we've been assuming (or at least I have) that it would have public facing amenities and services that would operate separate from the Thunder and be accessible without a ticket to the games.

The lack of transparency and trickle of information supported by superlatives and not tangibles does seem to be hurting the slam dunk assumption the campaign has been operating under since the first teasing announcement
was made about the project.

That's a good point. Did the team say they'd pay $50 million, still pay rent, and not request our share of revenue from other events or we'll pay $X, pay less in rent, and request their proportionate share of money on other events? Or did that stuff even factor into the negotiation...

[Pete]

Here's a question that needs to be answered:

Has any other city provided 95% in public funding for an NBA arena?


I mentioned the Milwaukee deal where the public portion was less than 50%. I see a $1.3B arena on the boards in Philly that will be completely privately funded. The highest percentage of public funds I can find was 58% by Detroit -- and obviously, that city has very serious economic development issues, totally unlike OKC. Detroit also leveraged all types of resources, some of them federally funded.

So, how did we come up with these numbers for our new arena?