Paycom Center (formerly Chesapeake Arena)

[Larry OKC]

should the owners then if they build their own arena keep all the profit and tickets sales for the events all year long?

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

[betts]

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams. For the nth time: we are a very small market. We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. Bennett has spent almost half a billion dollars to bring a team to OKC. That team has immeasurably enhanced quality of life, civic pride and national and international awareness of our city. Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in the red. It will take the owners decades to break even on their investment, most likely. We are not sharing Bennetts financial risk. I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.

[dcsooner]

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams. For the nth time: we are a very small market. We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. Bennett has spent almost half a billion dollars to bring a team to OKC. That team has immeasurably enhanced quality of life, civic pride and national and international awareness of our city. Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in th red. We are not sharing Bennetts financial risk. I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.

Betts,
Some will never understand the significant (personal and financial)costs expended by this teams owners (esp Mr. Bennett) to bring world class basketball to OKC. For all the reasons you stated people like me who live out of State buy season tickets to the Thunder because we understand the "value" of them being in my home State. As I have said on numerous occassions, I hope the owners make lots of money! the exposure OKC is receiving across the nation as a result of Basketball has been tremendous. I am extremely proud to talk about, brag about, wear the gear and promote the team and my home State, you cannot place a monetary value on that. Go Thunder!

[okcpulse]

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

The Thunder are renting the arena, are they not? I don't see how that is at the taxpayer's expense.

[OKCisOK4me]

The Thunder are renting the arena, are they not? I don't see how that is at the taxpayer's expense.

If the taxpayers didn't make a conscientious effort to extend the one cent sales tax, the team wouldn't be here. Take that for what it's worth, lol.

(Nevermind this post. I read yours wrong...)

[Snowman]

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

The city knew what they were getting into, the only thing they are assured is the contracts with Bennett. (Which may not even be that sure ask the people in Seattle.) Some PR and donations are likely but probably not in writing. Things they get along with the team is national attention, quality of life, possible draw for new residents or more reasons to stay for current residents, taxes on tickets, food and entertainment as people go. They knew that when the passed the original MAPS as the stadium was built as the core essentials to be upgraded if a major hockey or basketball team could be drawn, and felt it was of great importance because in the early 1990's downtown was dieing.

[Easy180]

Sure, just as the current owners of the building (the City/taxpayers) should be getting all of the profit. But Bennett won't do it as he has stated he doesn't think arenas can be run at a profit. So he is more than happy to have someone else pay for his place of business AND take part of the profits to a building he doesn't own (eventual naming rights etc).

Imagine the life changing difference it would make to the city..They could repave a quarter mile of a highway with that huge sum

[Doug Loudenback]

Betts,
Some will never understand the significant (personal and financial)costs expended by this teams owners (esp Mr. Bennett) to bring world class basketball to OKC. For all the reasons you stated people like me who live out of State buy season tickets to the Thunder because we understand the "value" of them being in my home State. As I have said on numerous occassions, I hope the owners make lots of money! the exposure OKC is receiving across the nation as a result of Basketball has been tremendous. I am extremely proud to talk about, brag about, wear the gear and promote the team and my
home State, you cannot place a monetary value on that. Go Thunder!

[betts]

I still have a little frisson of joy renewing my season tickets. I've lived here so many years hoping, without much actual hope, for professional sports. It's still fairly unbelievable to me that we can take for granted the fact that the Thunder will be playing 41+ games in OKC again next year and we've already finished paying to have them here.

[Larry OKC]

WOW, where to begin? How about 1 by 1?

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams. For the nth time: we are a very small market. We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. Bennett has spent almost half a billion dollars to bring a team to OKC. That team has immeasurably enhanced quality of life, civic pride and national and international awareness of our city. Most NBA teams make very little money or operate in the red. It will take the owners decades to break even on their investment, most likely. We are not sharing Bennetts financial risk. I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.

Bennett's investment was just that, an investment in the team, they deserve all profit derived from directly from the team (but NOT from the taxpayer paid for facility). if they want the profit from that, build it. The owners went on record as stating they would be happy just to break even, yet are making a conservative multi-million $$$ profit. In stark contrast to the "break even" philosophy the City took, which pretty much ended up being the case. If the NBA business model is that broken that public subsidy is required, then they need to fix the broken business model, or have the cities share in the ownership of the team (and the profits). The owners will most likely get a healthy return on their investment when they eventually sell the team (as EVERY previous owner of the Sonics/Thunder has done). Even Schultz with his multi-million $$$ yearly losses got all of the investment back, the losses AND a tidy profit.

The Thunder are renting the arena, are they not? I don't see how that is at the taxpayer's expense.

They are renting it, but essentially "at cost", after the City's expenses are covered, the City Manager & Mayor both said they were just looking at "breaking even" and maybe getting a $100K profit out of it. This is in stark contrast to the $1M profit the City saw when the Hornets were here (again, after the City was reimbursed for all of its expenses). The main difference between the 2 deals? Bennett was sitting on the City's side for the $1M profit and the other side of the table when that dropped down to $100K for the City. You didn't mention naming rights, but this was another area where the City failed in the Break-even" philosophy. Under the terms, the City is getting $100K+/year LESS than what they were getting under the Ford agreement.

If the taxpayers didn't make a conscientious effort to extend the one cent sales tax, the team wouldn't be here. Take that for what it's worth, lol.

(Nevermind this post. I read yours wrong...)

Not sure if the last part was directed at me or not, so here it goes anyway...The team was coming here no matter what happened with the arena vote. The fact is, Bennett filed/announced the relocation of the team 6 weeks BEFORE the vote date was set/announced. Bennett knew what the Ford was like (he was going to be part of the ownership group of the NHL team that we lost out on). He knew the condition when the Hornets were here (he was heavily instrumental in that happening). He knew the condition of the Ford when he purchased the Sonics. He knew what it was when he announced the relocation.

The city knew what they were getting into, the only thing they are assured is the contracts with Bennett. (Which may not even be that sure ask the people in Seattle.) Some PR and donations are likely but probably not in writing. Things they get along with the team is national attention, quality of life, possible draw for new residents or more reasons to stay for current residents, taxes on tickets, food and entertainment as people go. They knew that when the passed the original MAPS as the stadium was built as the core essentials to be upgraded if a major hockey or basketball team could be drawn, and felt it was of great importance because in the early 1990's downtown was dieing.

Had heard (but haven't seen the substantiation) that the City can charge a tax on the NBA tickets, but has declined to do so. Again, due to cost over runs, amenities were cut back in an attempt to keep it within budget (but still went $8M+ over), with the intent of the eventual tenant to pay for the costs of the upgrades.

[BoulderSooner]

i know for an almost 100% fact that the thunder would not be here if the people had voted down the arena inprovements

[Larry OKC]

To late to edit my previous answer so here is an addendum...

Just as is done in most cities for most professional teams.

True, most cities do have some level of public financing for their arenas, but that doesn't mean that all or even most are 100% public financed (as OKC is). The distribution ranges from Zero to 100%, with it being fairly evenly split among those at 50% and above w/public financing, and those that are below.

For the nth time: we are a very small market.

3/25/08

....here's what New Jersey Nets Owner Lewis Katz said about Oklahoma City.
In my judgment, this is going to be an amazing experience for the NBA, amazing," Katz said.
Katz is part of the league's relocation committee. He said Oklahoma City is a big time sports town.
"You keep talking about being a small market, you're not a small market," Katz said.

But even if you go along with the small market idea, it is seen as a plus (especially in OKC's case), from Stern just last year...

Oklahoma City is the latest in a line of small-market, one-major-league-sport towns that have become an NBA specialty.
While Stern sees the success in Oklahoma City fitting with the legacy of San Antonio, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Orlando and Portland, something here is “unique.”
“If you look at the history of the NBA’s small-market franchises, not having professional sports competition allows us to maximize revenue and fan support,” Stern said.

We didn't pay a penny to help purchase the Thunder. ... I consider it well worth a few pennies a day for a few years, personally.

Try 15 to 30 years. The 15 month Ford tax just covered the down payment. Now we have to be concerned about the "mortgage"...

As you know, during the Seattle litigation, the Judge asked if there was anything in the Key lease that required Seattle to keep the arena up to whatever the shifting NBA standards might be. Answer was “No”. Bennett took care of that problem with the OKC lease (applies to both the arena and the practice facility):

I. Maintenance and Repair; Capital Improvements:
THE CITY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for paying all Capital Improvements: general maintenance and repair costs reasonably necessary in order to ensure THAT THE ARENA CONTINUES TO BE A FIRST-CLASS NBA ARENA.

The City is required by the terms of the lease to keep paying for continual upgrades (which could easily mean paying for a new arena) for the next 15 to 30 years...with virtually no funding source. Do the math yourself, but it has cost us $100+ million after just 5 years to bringing the arena back up to the NBA standards (avg. $20M/year and the only dedicated money going towards that is the naming rights money that only comes to about half a million/year. That leaves us $19.5M/year in the hole.

[BoulderSooner]

in the cases that an arena was buillt with a split of public and private funds .. the private party gets a share of all arena revenue


fyi we didn't bring the arena "back up" to nba standards .. it was never build to nba standards ... it was a on the cheep downtown arena that served our needs at the time..

[Larry OKC]

i know for an almost 100% fact that the thunder would not be here if the people had voted down the arena inprovements

And what do you base that on? I have seen no credible evidence to support what you are saying. Even if the improvements had been defeated at the polls, everyone involved wanted the team here (Stern, Owners, City leadership etc). They would have figured out something (even if it meant paying for it themselves). It was even admitted by a staunch supporter that in the past several years, every relocation has been approved. Why? As Maverick's owner Cuban said to the effect "you would be amazed at what these owners will do for a million dollars" (what each team gets when a team relocates). That added to the "you vote for my relocation, I'll vote for your's" mindset of most of the owners, and they play along.

[Larry OKC]

in the cases that an arena was buillt with a split of public and private funds .. the private party gets a share of all arena revenue


fyi we didn't bring the arena "back up" to nba standards .. it was never build to nba standards ... it was a on the cheep downtown arena that served our needs at the time..

Ummm, yes we did...or we were lied to on the Ballot itself and we were lied to by City leadership though the years. Take your pick.

As to the 1st part of your post, I have no problem with a split if the Owners and City share in the cost of the facility. The Thunder contributed ZERO towards the Arena (building it or the improvements) so they deserved ZERO of the profits. if they had paid for the improvements, it would have brought it down to a nearly 50/50 split.

[Rover]

I swear, some people need to move to Gotebo or Uncas or some other bus stop town (no offense to these, I'm sure fine towns) where they won't be asked to support anything that improves the quality of life and where they can live the cheapest most basic life they can find.

The arena has been a great investment by this city's citizens. The Thunder have drawn huge amounts of great attention to this city which helps immensely in attracting jobs, investments, etc. Anybody who doesn't understand all the tangibles and intangibles that come from this just doesn't live in the real world.

[bombermwc]

Boulder is correct and incorrect, just like Larry. The "Maps Arena" was designed for NHL, not NBA. At that time the city was trying to lure an NHL team to move here and got only as far as having the league come visit and pass on us. When it became clear that the building was going to be built with no permanent tenant, it was cut-back. There were signficant changes in the "finishing touches" that were left out. This building was built from day 1 as an incomplete project. It was intended to be "completed" later as it is not being done. It's not a mystery or secret folks....that's been said from the city from the time it opened "tenantless". The city wasn't going to spend millions more for the Blazers to be there.

Also, if you think the city isn't making money on the Thunder, you're missing a lot of details. While the arena itself may not be the most lucrative deal, we're also getting hotel/motel money for a significant number of rooms for the teams that come in every week....along with all the traveling fans. You can't really count all the money people spend on dinner in Bricktown because they would have either ate closer to home or bought groceries in town to cook at home. That's just shifting the dollars, not new dollars. But the travelers are all new dollars. To to mention the merchandising and concessions (if nothing else, we get taxes), and what about parking....those vendors pay taxes as well. It's true we may not be getting some huge amount off tickets and the rental, but we're getting a LOT out of the deal. Not to even mention everything non-tangile that's already been discussed about the city's image....and that results in dollars in a whole new way.

[BoulderSooner]

And what do you base that on? I have seen no credible evidence to support what you are saying. Even if the improvements had been defeated at the polls, everyone involved wanted the team here (Stern, Owners, City leadership etc). They would have figured out something (even if it meant paying for it themselves). It was even admitted by a staunch supporter that in the past several years, every relocation has been approved. Why? As Maverick's owner Cuban said to the effect "you would be amazed at what these owners will do for a million dollars" (what each team gets when a team relocates). That added to the "you vote for my relocation, I'll vote for your's" mindset of most of the owners, and they play along.

i base it on conversations that is have had with people that would know .. and some of the owners wanted the team here if it could be a sustainable nba team and it couldn't have been without the arena inprovements

and as for every relcoation being approved ... the nba, nor the NFL or NHL, have any real choice where there team move to .. Al Davis sued the NFL to move to oakland he won .. those leages can't stop a move it restrictes free trade ... MLB can they have a broad antitrust ex. .

[betts]

In cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta there are incredible numbers of Fortune 500 companies and others who provide significant sponsorship money to a team. Teams located in large cities are able to negotiate huge television contracts based on their market rankings. We are the 45th largest market. We will never have a television contract that approaches what a professional team in a market like New York can generate. We can't charge ticket prices like they can either. It's far more complicated than selling out an arena and having enthusiastic fans. If we hadn't improved our arena and negotiated a favorable contract for the owners, the team would be in Kansas City or San Jose.....maybe still in Seattle. We have to be honest about what we are......a small market lucky to have a team. Or rather, savvy enough to do what it took to make an incredibly smart PR and quality of life move. Clay Bennett took a huge risk and I'm grateful.

[BoulderSooner]

Boulder is correct and incorrect, just like Larry. The "Maps Arena" was designed for NHL, not NBA. At that time the city was trying to lure an NHL team to move here and got only as far as having the league come visit and pass on us. When it became clear that the building was going to be built with no permanent tenant, it was cut-back. There were signficant changes in the "finishing touches" that were left out. This building was built from day 1 as an incomplete project. It was intended to be "completed" later as it is not being done. It's not a mystery or secret folks....that's been said from the city from the time it opened "tenantless". The city wasn't going to spend millions more for the Blazers to be there.

Also, if you think the city isn't making money on the Thunder, you're missing a lot of details. While the arena itself may not be the most lucrative deal, we're also getting hotel/motel money for a significant number of rooms for the teams that come in every week....along with all the traveling fans. You can't really count all the money people spend on dinner in Bricktown because they would have either ate closer to home or bought groceries in town to cook at home. That's just shifting the dollars, not new dollars. But the travelers are all new dollars. To to mention the merchandising and concessions (if nothing else, we get taxes), and what about parking....those vendors pay taxes as well. It's true we may not be getting some huge amount off tickets and the rental, but we're getting a LOT out of the deal. Not to even mention everything non-tangile that's already been discussed about the city's image....and that results in dollars in a whole new way.

we got alot closer than the NHL just visiting .. we were just left out of expansion and nashville (i think) got the team .. ...

and you can count people that eat in bricktown .. as lots of them either A don't live in OKC .. yukon/norman/edmond or B if they do live in okc spend far more out to the game than they would eating at home ..

[bombermwc]

Meh....that's also over stating the influence of those small extra dollars in comparison to average daily dollars spent in the city by a resident. That's sort of economics 101 when you are discussing shifting dollars rather than new dollars. Find me a person that doesn't live in the city limits that doesnt still spend money in the city of okc.

If I break a window, i'm not helping the economy by helping the window repair guy. I'm just shifting the money I would have spent on something else from one company to another. I either eat at Zio's downtown, or on Meridian...hmmm

[BoulderSooner]

Meh....that's also over stating the influence of those small extra dollars in comparison to average daily dollars spent in the city by a resident. That's sort of economics 101 when you are discussing shifting dollars rather than new dollars. Find me a person that doesn't live in the city limits that doesnt still spend money in the city of okc.

If I break a window, i'm not helping the economy by helping the window repair guy. I'm just shifting the money I would have spent on something else from one company to another. I either eat at Zio's downtown, or on Meridian...hmmm

not if you eat in midwest city .. or in moore or in norman or yukon .. and now you are eating in OKC ..

[BDP]

The Thunder contributed ZERO towards the Arena (building it or the improvements) so they deserved ZERO of the profits.

Actually, just by being the major tenant, they contribute A LOT towards the arena. Every bit of additional value added in potential naming rights is directly related to the team and the NBA's brand. Without the thunder, the naming rights of the arena probably weren't even worth what the Ford dealership paid for it. It's reach was limited mainly to the region and has little tangential exposure potential.

Now the naming rights have national and international exposure value. Every dollar added to the naming rights sold above what he city was originally getting is because of 1 thing only: the NBA.

Also, the arena operations gain significant economies of scale by having a major tenant that opens its doors 40+ times a year. This makes it a much better deal for the city's agreement with the management company. Again, all because of the NBA.

Also you have thousands of more people coming into the city dozens of times a year because of 1 thing: the NBA. There is no way that the arena itself could have done that without the NBA. This is like having an additional 40 concerts a year averaging over 18,000 tickets sold in downtown Oklahoma City. There aren't even that many concerts on tour at any given time that average those kind of sales, let alone the fraction of those that would come to Oklahoma in a given year.

To have built the arena to be a standalone profit center for the city would have been a stupid exercise in futility that would have had to buck just about every previous public facility model in existence in order to succeed. The reality is that it was built as a way to draw hundreds of thousands of people to the city to help feed its tourism, hospitality, and service industries along with all the tax benefits that come with doing so. As such, having the NBA as a its major tenant is paramount to its success in this area. With the NBA as a tenant, even if the city sees not one dollar in increased revenue from the arena itself, the actual economic benefit of the arena to the city has increased exponentially. This is even before the intangibles effect of the city's reputation, exposure, and livability are factored in. While it may seem like a sweetheart deal on the surface, it is really no different than what most major tenants get in any real estate deals.

The bottom line is that, anyway you look at it, there is no doubt the the city's return on investment in the arena is much greater with the NBA here, even if the increase in return is not coming directly from arena operations. You combine that with the fact that the Oklahoma City taxpayer has gotten such a bargain on this facility (less than $100 million initial investment and less than $200 million total)and you have one of the best executions of public arena development and management in the country.

[ljbab728]

Meh....that's also over stating the influence of those small extra dollars in comparison to average daily dollars spent in the city by a resident. That's sort of economics 101 when you are discussing shifting dollars rather than new dollars. Find me a person that doesn't live in the city limits that doesnt still spend money in the city of okc.

If I break a window, i'm not helping the economy by helping the window repair guy. I'm just shifting the money I would have spent on something else from one company to another. I either eat at Zio's downtown, or on Meridian...hmmm

So with that logic there is no reason to promote any new businesses in OKC. We're going to spend our money anyway so nothing new will ever be needed to benefit the city.
It's not just a flat dollar and cents consideration about new taxes brought in. It's a quality of life issue that can attract new residents and businesses to our area and help persuade those that are already here to stay. And you can't dispute that will affect our tax base.

[Larry OKC]

NBA or not?

Boulder is correct and incorrect, just like Larry. The "Maps Arena" was designed for NHL, not NBA.

Not according to the original MAPS ballot which stated:

(B)(7) An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards.

There have been numerous articles, stating as fact, that the Ford was built to NBA & NHL standards but here is a sampling:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10077613/
Benham Selected for MAPS Sports Arena (Journal Record, 3/22/95)

The 20,000-seat MAPS arena also must be designed to standards of the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League, from which the city hopes to lure a franchise.

Hornets to Play in Oklahoma City (9/21/05?)
NBA Commissioner Stern:

“The devastation of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region has made it necessary for the Hornets to move to a temporary location for the upcoming season,” Stern said. “Fortunately, the Hornets have received a gracious invitation from Mayor Mick Cornett and the business leaders and citizens of Oklahoma City to play their home games in the Ford Center, a first-class facility that we hope to fill with new Hornets fans this season.”

Obviously if the NBA commissioner calls it a first-class facility, it meets NBA standards if he is going to recommend to the Hornet's owner that OKC be considered.


Here's one from ESPN: Oklahoma City high on list of home sites for Hornets Updated: September 18, 2005.

When Oklahoma City opened up its Ford Center three years ago, its residents surely hoped that it would one day host a major professional sports team. After all, IT WAS BUILT TO SATISFY BOTH NBA AND NHL SPECIFICATIONS. ... Representatives in Louisville, Ky.; Nashville, Tenn.; San Diego; and Kansas City, Mo., also offered to temporarily host the team, but no city can offer THE STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY with as many open dates as Oklahoma City can.

Then there was this article about the Hornets, featuring Desmond Mason (later w/the Thunder)
Everything's A-OK for Hornets on Opening Night (11/2/2005)
espn.com

"These crowds are going to be like college basketball crowds," said Desmond Mason, the Hornets' newly acquired swingman from Oklahoma State. "It's unlike anything else you'll see at an NBA game."

Yet even the player who knows this terrain best found it a bit strange to be playing a real NBA game in the land of collegiate football. The proximity to the rest of the Southwest Division and the presence of a relatively new NBA-level arena were lures that, for the league and the Hornets, made Oklahoma City an obvious choice to take the Hornets in, but Mason was openly stunned to be back.

Bare Bones?

At that time the city was trying to lure an NHL team to move here and got only as far as having the league come visit and pass on us. When it became clear that the building was going to be built with no permanent tenant, it was cut-back. There were signficant changes in the "finishing touches" that were left out. This building was built from day 1 as an incomplete project. It was intended to be "completed" later as it is not being done. It's not a mystery or secret folks....that's been said from the city from the time it opened "tenantless". The city wasn't going to spend millions more for the Blazers to be there.

This is partially correct. We were tenetless, and as you mentioned the City made "signficant changes in the 'finishing touches'", BUT you must remember that the City intended for the eventual tenant to pay for those.

The "Bare Bones" contention is wrong, if anything it might be better described as being built "builder's white" since we didn't have a tenant).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10077613/
Benham Selected for MAPS Sports Arena (Journal Record, 3/22/95)

That price [$81M] is in the middle range of similar arenas that have been built between $37.3 million and $175.1 million.

MAPS arena cost estimate up millions, (Journal Record, 6/20/97)

The MAPS indoor sports arena, which was to have cost $84 million, is topping out at $93 million for "a whole structure," the MAPS Citizens Oversight Board was told Thursday. Tom Gunning, project director for Oklahoma City-based The Benham Group, said the "base" building alone will cost $71.2 million -- well within the fixed limit of construction of $74.9 million mandated by the city. However, that base building does not include a list of 22 alternates -- items the city would like to have included -- which add $6.7 million to the base price. The group also left out millions from the base building that would be included or paid for by others at a later time. The architects got their costs down to the base price they did by deleting construction items from the original project definition and by deleting other items such as the scoreboard system, build-out costs of suites, sitework that will be performed by "others," and additional items. Under questioning from MAPS board members, Gunning confirmed that "a whole building" ready to go would cost about $93 million.

Intangible benefits?

Also, if you think the city isn't making money on the Thunder, you're missing a lot of details. While the arena itself may not be the most lucrative deal, we're also getting hotel/motel money for a significant number of rooms for the teams that come in every week.... Not to even mention everything non-tangile that's already been discussed about the city's image....and that results in dollars in a whole new way.

Not disputing "Intangible benefits". They all sound great BUT didn't we have the same intangibles when the Hornets were here? Those benefits should be considered the "gravy" of the deal, not the meat & potatoes. Again, in sharp contrast with the profit sharing deal with the Hornets (when Bennett was on the City's side of the negotiations), where the City saw a DIRECT $1M+ net profit (after being reimbursed for moving expenses etc). Our self-described "sophisticated" City Leadership approached it with a "break-even philosophy" where the City might see a $150K/year direct profit. Even that amount they quickly gave away (as we are losing right at the same amount in the the Team is "letting" the City keep under the Ford naming rights agreement). The City doesn't even get to keep that, as it must be put into the fund for further upgrades to the Arena. That is the only dedicated funding source and based on the average yearly cost to date is about $20M/year short).

Where is the dramatic public return and the broad community benefit (that aren't intangible) that Bennett talked about?:

"So you can go through the steps that then suggest, well, perhaps this is an appropriate use of public investment because it is going to provide such dramatic public return," Bennett said at a sports business conference at Oklahoma City University.
"Unlike maybe a handful of individuals building the building that would never see any of it back, they might perhaps rationalize some benefit to the company, but the broad benefit really goes to the community, and not just intangibles."

.