Taft Stadium

[kwhey]

Why would they when the 'Peake Arena is already here ? Which is probably your point.

The other part is it happens all the time. Rarely does a team build their own stadium, arena, ballpark, etc.

[mkjeeves]

Why didn't the Thunder build their own arena?

The citizens voted to build a sports arena with the hope of having professional sports in the arena.

On Taft, the citizens voted for the Maps for Kids agenda. I'd have to go back and look at what the voters were told specifically, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't advertised we were spending that tax money for facilities for pro sports.

Post bid, the press box was enlarged from the original design and upgrades were made to the ticket office. I do wonder if either or both are related to pro-soccer needs, who is paying for the changes and what the financial justifications are.

[Pete]

Take it for what it is, but the numbers OCPS reports is that Energy put in around 1 million, while the district put in about 11 million. They didn't discuss how the 1 million contribution was divided up...donations or direct funding.

That small of the overall percentage given the amount of "soccer specific" work being done is what bugs me. And out of that 1 million, how much of it is for stuff the district wouldn't use because it's 100% Energy...like the endzone seating, hell of a lot of decorations, etc. And did Energy influence which turf was purchased because of the "removable" lines....which I'd still like to see in action. There is so little discussion out of OCPS on how the district will be able to use the place, it just really bothers me.

Of all civic matters in which to invest energy, I simply can't understand why this particular issue has you so up in arms.

The stadium will be much, much nicer and will be getting a lot more use. I'm sure that OKCPS will also benefit from the Energy games themselves through rent and probably some cut of the concessions as well.

The Energy put up a ton of stuff at McGuiness and I doubt the school paid for that... Why would you even think the Oklahoma City Public schools would be shouldering any of the similar costs at Taft?

This seems to be a win-win for all involved.

[OkieNate]

Of all civic matters in which to invest energy, I simply can't understand why this particular issue has you so up in arms.

The stadium will be much, much nicer and will be getting a lot more use. I'm sure that OKCPS will also benefit from the Energy games themselves through rent and probably some cut of the concessions as well.

The Energy put up a ton of stuff at McGuiness and I doubt the school paid for that... Why would you even think the Oklahoma City Public schools would be shouldering any of the similar costs at Taft?

This seems to be a win-win for all involved.

Love. Thank you Pete!

[Laramie]

The other part is it happens all the time. Rarely does a team build their own stadium, arena, ballpark, etc.

Why would a team want to build their own arena or stadium when there are facilities in the city capable of meeting their needs? Many of these venues could use additional tenants and activities.

Realize that many of the owners are taking a big financial risk. The Thunder owners lost around $60 million before relocation of the team from Seattle. Kansas City offered 'free rent' if the Thunder would have relocated to their city.

The publicity, marketing & branding the Thunder has brought OKC can't be measured in dollars & cents. There are very few owners who build their own venues. Oklahoma City doesn't have the billionaire star power as cities like Brooklyn, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York or Seattle.

Our MAPS investment in the Chesapeake Energy Arena has paid big intangible dividends.

[kwhey]

Why would a team want to build their own arena or stadium when there are facilities in the city capable of meeting their needs? Many of these venues could use additional tenants and activities.

Realize that many of the owners are taking a big financial risk. The Thunder owners lost around $60 million before relocation of the team from Seattle. Kansas City offered 'free rent' if the Thunder would have relocated to their city.

The publicity, marketing & branding the Thunder has brought OKC can't be measured in dollars & cents. There are very few owners who build their own venues. Oklahoma City doesn't have the billionaire star power as cities like Brooklyn, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York or Seattle.

Our MAPS investment in the Chesapeake Energy Arena has paid big intangible dividends.

You totally missed where i was going with that.

[bombermwc]

I tend to agree with what mkjeeves said.

But let me be more clear on why it bugs me, because you're probably misunderstanding the gripe. As long as OCPS is able to fully use the facility and doesn't, in any way, get overridden by the Energy for events, then I'm fine with the whole thing. I just can't seem to get any good information out of the district. That has fostered a relationship where the Energy is the sole provider of information, which obviously only discusses the stadium in terms of soccer use. If someone from the district would simply say that yes, football/soccer/etc for OCPS will continue as normal without interference from Energy, then I have no gripe. The field lines are a major portion of that if you understand what they are saying about them. And that's a MAJOR sticking point for me because the OCPS kids are who are going to be shafted in the end when (not if) the Energy move on. Remember the goal (no pun intended) is to move to MLS some day with Energy has a stepstool. MLS will not be playing at Taft. Unless someone can come back and put in permanent lines down for OCPS, it's a cost issue with having to re-stripe regularly...and it isn't cheap like chalk boys and girls. I can understand the Energy not wanting to play on a field with football lines. But if you're going to play at a high school stadium, you need to accept those lines as part of the deal. I would also argue that a 20K arena built by the CITY is an apples/oranges comparison to a high school football stadium that came from years of hard fought battles to get BOND money.

So the complaint is a long-term sustainability question for a cash-strapped district and a sports franchise that won't simply hand over 250K to paint the field when they leave out of the kindness of their heart. But again, if the OCPS PR folks would simply put out some information, all of this could probably be cleared up.

[Jersey Boss]

Why would a team want to build their own arena or stadium when there are facilities in the city capable of meeting their needs? Many of these venues could use additional tenants and activities.

Realize that many of the owners are taking a big financial risk. The Thunder owners lost around $60 million before relocation of the team from Seattle. Kansas City offered 'free rent' if the Thunder would have relocated to their city.

The publicity, marketing & branding the Thunder has brought OKC can't be measured in dollars & cents. There are very few owners who build their own venues. Oklahoma City doesn't have the billionaire star power as cities like Brooklyn, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York or Seattle.

Our MAPS investment in the Chesapeake Energy Arena has paid big intangible dividends.

I'm going to call that statement out. When was the last time an NBA team or a major league team did not sell for more than what the owner originally paid for it? There is little risk when you don't have to buy or pay for the facility that you make your money from, as well as having territorial rights for your business. If the ABA was starting up now do you think they would be able to lease the Chesapeake Arena? Or would the Thunder/NBA be able to pressure the City from leasing it to them as well? How many manufacturing facilities get their physical plant paid for by tax payers? Does Moore own the Warren Theatre and lease it?

[Jersey Boss]

I tend to agree with what mkjeeves said.

But let me be more clear on why it bugs me, because you're probably misunderstanding the gripe. As long as OCPS is able to fully use the facility and doesn't, in any way, get overridden by the Energy for events, then I'm fine with the whole thing. I just can't seem to get any good information out of the district. That has fostered a relationship where the Energy is the sole provider of information, which obviously only discusses the stadium in terms of soccer use. If someone from the district would simply say that yes, football/soccer/etc for OCPS will continue as normal without interference from Energy, then I have no gripe. The field lines are a major portion of that if you understand what they are saying about them. And that's a MAJOR sticking point for me because the OCPS kids are who are going to be shafted in the end when (not if) the Energy move on. Remember the goal (no pun intended) is to move to MLS some day with Energy has a stepstool. MLS will not be playing at Taft. Unless someone can come back and put in permanent lines down for OCPS, it's a cost issue with having to re-stripe regularly...and it isn't cheap like chalk boys and girls. I can understand the Energy not wanting to play on a field with football lines. But if you're going to play at a high school stadium, you need to accept those lines as part of the deal. I would also argue that a 20K arena built by the CITY is an apples/oranges comparison to a high school football stadium that came from years of hard fought battles to get BOND money.

So the complaint is a long-term sustainability question for a cash-strapped district and a sports franchise that won't simply hand over 250K to paint the field when they leave out of the kindness of their heart. But again, if the OCPS PR folks would simply put out some information, all of this could probably be cleared up.

Would the soccer teams that play for the OKCPS not benefit from the field as marked by the Energy?

[John]

Every non turf field in OKCPS has to be striped (and mowed, too).

Not having permanent lines lends to greater use, and it's a relatively simple procedure to add/remove lines depending on the season...

[Laramie]

I'm going to call that statement out. When was the last time an NBA team or a major league team did not sell for more than what the owner originally paid for it? There is little risk when you don't have to buy or pay for the facility that you make your money from, as well as having territorial rights for your business. If the ABA was starting up now do you think they would be able to lease the Chesapeake Arena? Or would the Thunder/NBA be able to pressure the City from leasing it to them as well? How many manufacturing facilities get their physical plant paid for by tax payers? Does Moore own the Warren Theatre and lease it?

What does that have to do with requiring the owner to build his own facility? That's not the point unless you purchased the franchise for the purpose of 'flipping it' in a quick sale.

The OKC Energy has future plans to construct their own stadium or partner with the city to build a private-public funded venue--hopefully something that might eventually lead to OKC obtaining an MLS 'big league' franchise. Any fixture upgrades to Taft Stadium will benefit OKCPS as Taft will be a temporary home.

Taft Stadium is owned and operated by OKCPS. They can make more money leasing the stadium to the OKC Energy than the funds generated by Northwest, John Marshall, Centennial & Northeast High Schools' football teams.

I guarantee you that if our city told the 'NBA Thunder owners that they had to build their own venue we wouldn't have an NBA team in OKC.

Eligible cities clamor for the opportunity to house a major league (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) franchise. We built the Chesapeake Energy Arena in an attempt to attract a major league franchise. Once a major league franchise took occupancy; it had exclusive rights over any minor league operation.

You tell me how many owners build their own venues especially in a start up or virgin major league sports market?

The cities/counties that are acquiring major league sports franchises have built venues for the purpose to attract a major league franchise:

Dallas, TX - NHL Minnesota North Stars relocated to Dallas' Reunion Arena; city has since built the American Airlines Center to house both the NBA & the NHL.

Indianapolis, ID - NFL Baltimore Colts relocated to Indianapolis because the RCA Dome was available; Indy has built a new Lucas Oil (Dome) Stadium--new home for the Colts.

Memphis, TN - NBA Vancouver Grizzlies relocated to Memphis because of the city owned FedEx Forum while temporarily using the Memphis Pyramid Arena.

Nashville, TN - NFL Houston Oilers relocated to Tennessee because the city promised to build a new facility.

Oklahoma City, OK - NBA Seattle Supersonic relocated to OKC as the 'MAPS for HOOPS' passage (Practice facility, Arena Upgrades) insured the venues met NBA specs.

Raleigh, NC - NHL Hartford Whalers relocated to Raleigh because of their new city owned facility.

Bold = 'break-through market,' city obtained its first major league franchise.

One major function for building the downtown indoor sports arena (Peake) was to attract the NHL or a 'long shot' NBA franchise in addition to providing an arena for other function within our city.

The use of public funds to lure or keep teams begs several questions, the foremost of which is, "Are these good investments for cities?"

Should Cities Pay for Sports Facilities? https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicati...ticles/?id=468

Why would a franchise vacate a mega market like Seattle; relocate to a small-time market like Oklahoma City to build their own arena when the sole purpose of relocation was the attraction of an NBA-ready arena?

Our position to provide a temporary NBA home for New Orleans Hornets as a trial run paid big dividends. We immediately saw that Oklahoma City metro area exceeded expectations with the Hornets; could our city support an NBA franchise? Initial results indicated that our market was ripe.

[ljbab728]

I just can't seem to get any good information out of the district. That has fostered a relationship where the Energy is the sole provider of information, which obviously only discusses the stadium in terms of soccer use. If someone from the district would simply say that yes, football/soccer/etc for OCPS will continue as normal without interference from Energy, then I have no gripe.

What does that mean? Who have you contacted at the OKCPS and what is your standing that makes you think they would answer you?

[Snowman]

Every non turf field in OKCPS has to be striped (and mowed, too).

Not having permanent lines lends to greater use, and it's a relatively simple procedure to add/remove lines depending on the season...

Even permanent lines is a bit of a misnomer since they still tend to get repainted periodically and the field needs repaired from time to time and eventually replaced.

[bombermwc]

John, thanks for that video. That actually helps make me feel a lot better about it. Looks like the worst part is having to get the rubber back where it needs to be, which i'm sure people will be trained on. The seasons won't overlap so much as to require the entire football field be taken off and repainted for Energy in a short span of time. That is going to be quite an effort!

Snowman, that's only true to an extent. When you use the "permanent" markings, they will hold up better and wont require as much maintenance.

My main concern with the temporary lines and the effort is that the district will not be able to afford (or justify the need) being able to keep the lines how they should be. The Energy obviously will help keep that push going for soccer season, but there's a lot less paint on a soccer field, so when football season rolls around, there has to be cash available to buy the remover/new paint. I'm not a OCPS parent or even tax payer (live in Moore schools), but i just dont want the kids shafted...that's my overriding concern with this. I'm not concerned at all with that Energy thinks, to be totally honest. Long term sustainability of the place is the question. It wasn't long ago that OCPS could afford to keep the lines chalked and the numbers sprayed consistently. So an increase in cost for turf supplies concerns me. I dont think that's an invalid concern based on the district's past behavior.

ljbab - to your question, the most clear information ive ever been able to squeeze out of OCPS admin is the pdf about the bond issue projects, which was pre Energy. They have just ignored my questions, which is why it bugs me so much. It's totally opposite behavior from Moore Schools or OKC municipal departments. OCPS hasn't ever been that great about disseminating information about projects though.

[bradh]

The Energy's season is April to early September, exactly how much crossover is there going to be?

[Laramie]

Would the soccer teams that play for the OKCPS not benefit from the field as marked by the Energy?

It would be nice if the interest was there. Most OKCPS high schools play soccer on campus. It's not on par with football. There's not a lot of high schools that would use Taft for soccer since it would require faculty security as well as addition security (police) once they move to a venue of that size.

[Jersey Boss]

What does that have to do with requiring the owner to build his own facility? That's not the point unless you purchased the franchise for the purpose of 'flipping it' in a quick sale.

The OKC Energy has future plans to construct their own stadium or partner with the city to build a private-public funded venue--hopefully something that might eventually lead to OKC obtaining an MLS 'big league' franchise. Any fixture upgrades to Taft Stadium will benefit OKCPS as Taft will be a temporary home.

Taft Stadium is owned and operated by OKCPS. They can make more money leasing the stadium to the OKC Energy than the funds generated by Northwest, John Marshall, Centennial & Northeast High Schools' football teams.

I guarantee you that if our city told the 'NBA Thunder owners that they had to build their own venue we wouldn't have an NBA team in OKC.

Eligible cities clamor for the opportunity to house a major league (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) franchise. We built the Chesapeake Energy Arena in an attempt to attract a major league franchise. Once a major league franchise took occupancy; it had exclusive rights over any minor league operation.



The cities/counties that are acquiring major league sports franchises have built venues for the purpose to attract a major league franchise:

Dallas, TX - NHL Minnesota North Stars relocated to Dallas' Reunion Arena; city has since built the American Airlines Center to house both the NBA & the NHL.

Indianapolis, ID - NFL Baltimore Colts relocated to Indianapolis because the RCA Dome was available; Indy has built a new Lucas Oil (Dome) Stadium--new home for the Colts.

Memphis, TN - NBA Vancouver Grizzlies relocated to Memphis because of the city owned FedEx Forum while temporarily using the Memphis Pyramid Arena.

Nashville, TN - NFL Houston Oilers relocated to Tennessee because the city promised to build a new facility.

Oklahoma City, OK - NBA Seattle Supersonic relocated to OKC as the 'MAPS for HOOPS' passage (Practice facility, Arena Upgrades) insured the venues met NBA specs.

Raleigh, NC - NHL Hartford Whalers relocated to Raleigh because of their new city owned facility.

Bold = 'break-through market,' city obtained its first major league franchise.

One major function for building the downtown indoor sports arena (Peake) was to attract the NHL or a 'long shot' NBA franchise in addition to providing an arena for other function within our city.



Should Cities Pay for Sports Facilities? https://www.stlouisfed.org/publicati...ticles/?id=468



Our position to provide a temporary NBA home for New Orleans Hornets as a trial run paid big dividends. We immediately saw that Oklahoma City metro area exceeded expectations with the Hornets; could our city support an NBA franchise? Initial results indicated that our market was ripe.

My comment was directed at your position that "owners are taking a big financial risk".
As far as your other point about Should Cities Pay for Sports Facilities? The link provided indicates that tax payer funded sports facilities show a poor rate of return. This is my position as well. As I mentioned how many manufacturing facilities are constructed on the tax payers back with the hope that the plant will be occupied? Or in the entertainment sector, do cities build movie houses to entice Regal or Warren to set up shop there?

[bradh]

one of the most common sayings out there is, sports owners typically don't buy teams to make a profit. now, some may and some will when they sell (most actually), but it's not something most get into to make money

[John]

Even permanent lines is a bit of a misnomer since they still tend to get repainted periodically and the field needs repaired from time to time and eventually replaced.

Most football only 'FieldTurf' fields have the stripes cut in and sewn/glued with white colored turf.

The regular maintenance on artificial surfaces includes top dressing with the sand/rubber mixture and brushing said mixture in...

[Filthy]

It's cool to see this stadium being taken care of. My dad talks about his days in high school, that this was the place to see sporting events of all kinds.

For me personally, it holds some sentimental value, as I scored my first...and ONLY touchdown in high School as a Junior there. (In the North endzone.) The only reason, I got to play was because it was NW Classen that we played...and for the most part...it was typically 44-0, 50-0 by mid 3rd Quarter when we played them. So, I didn't get to play much varsity. But I always got some playing time against NW Classen!!!

[bombermwc]

Season-wise, I would say as long as the Energy is done by Sep 1, then there isn't a problem. Do playoffs become an issue though? And would any jr high games be played there between then as well or would they push those elsewhere (I don't know if they are played there now).

Laramie, given the comments from the Energy interviews, it sounded like they plan on playing high school soccer at Taft. Something like "those kids playing on the same field as a pro team". Not sure if that was just talking out of his rear, if that's a planned change, or if it as just PR confusion. Generally I would agree with that you said, but since soccer is less attended, it also doesn't take as much staff to run the game.

John, that's more of what I was expecting the field to have before the Energy was involved. That would have been a much better sustainable solution. That's why I'm so bugged about the temporary paint thing. They just sew in the lines for soccer while they're at it like all the other high school fields around (mid-del, pc, etc). And to Laramie's point, in Mid-Del at least, soccer is played at the football field. MCHS and CAHS have a separate turf practice field at the school (like the PCs and Edmond schools), but for Mid-Del, they don't have any stands at them or ability to host any sort of game. DCHS doesn't have one because the stadium is on-site there and there isn't any room to put in a separate practice field. Norman North would be similar, but with them and the PCs/Edmonds, I think they all have stands because track is hosted on those fields as well...for obvious reasons with Edmond).

[Pete]

[Pete]

Speegle looks almost finished:

[PhiAlpha]

What?!?! No permanently painted lines????

[Zuplar]

Wow that thing is looking fantastic.