David, it is not as if we're getting nothing for something. None of us can afford an NBA team, but a lot of us want one. It takes a very wealthy person to purchase a hundreds of millions of dollars team. Then, after making that kind of investment, the owner actually doesn't make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The owner makes an average of $10 million a year, which for Clay Bennett would represent less than a 3% return on his investment. That follows millions of dollars of losses in Seattle, costs of moving ($30 million) and rebranding ($5 million). Averaging $10 million a year is the upside, as 30% of the NBA owners last year lost money.

So, are we going to ask for what I call municipal welfare? You like to talk about corporate welfare, but the reverse exists too: The owner buys the team, assumes all losses AND pays for the arena so WE can enjoy it? Or, should perhaps the city make a contribution to something that certainly provides many intangible benefits and may, in a city like Oklahoma City, provide some direct economic benefits?

Personally, I don't care if we can show that the city makes a dime directly. I think there are that many intangible benefits for us as a city because we don't currently have a professional team. Of course the city will, because people will come from Tulsa, Enid, Wichita, etc to see games. If we were to make the playoffs, we would have people from all over the country coming to our city, staying in our hotels and eating in our restaurants. If we were to host the finals or an All Star Game, people from all over the world would come. In a smaller city like Oklahoma City, that is a far bigger deal than it is in a place like Seattle, which would continue to have two other professional teams.