Sonics owners push tax incentives
Journal Record
April 17, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – The owners of the Seattle SuperSonics mounted a full-court press on Oklahoma lawmakers Wednesday to convince them to pass a tax incentive package that supporters say will help lure the NBA team to Oklahoma City.

Lobbyists schmoozed lawmakers at the state Capitol and some received telephone calls and e-mails from Sonics owner Clay Bennett and other representatives of the ownership team a day before the state House is scheduled to consider final passage of legislation that will give the team a rebate on a portion of payroll taxes it will pay if it relocates.

“I know what they’re wanting,” said state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Moore, who said he planned to return phone calls from Bennett and Tom Price Jr., senior vice president of corporate development for Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy, owned by Sonics ownership partner Aubrey McClendon. “I want the Sonics here. I’m just not favorable to this sweetheart deal,” Wesselhoft said. “We’ve been blackmailed from the beginning on this.”

Wesselhoft voted against the measure when the House voted 66-32 on Monday to send the bill to the Senate. The Senate passed the bill 27-21 on Tuesday after stripping it of House amendments and sent it back to the House. State Rep. Charlie Joyner, R-Midwest City, who also voted against the bill, said he received an e-mail from Bennett that said the team might not come to Oklahoma City unless the House passes the tax incentive.“I just don’t think this thing has been handled right. That’s kind of holding legislators hostage,” Joyner said. “I’m not anti-NBA, but this is not right.”

A spokesman for the Sonics, Dan Mahoney, declined comment on the lobbying effort.

Bennett has filed a relocation request with the NBA and a subcommittee of three NBA owners plans to recommend approval when all 30 owners vote on the SuperSonics’ request on Friday.

State lawmakers are considering the tax package six weeks after Oklahoma City voters approved a sales tax extension to fund $121.6 million in improvements to a downtown arena and build a practice facility in hopes of luring the Sonics. The state legislation expands Oklahoma’s Quality Jobs Program to include the NBA. It would permit the Sonics to receive a rebate of some of the payroll taxes paid by the team and places a reimbursement cap on the incentives not to exceed the top income tax rate in Oklahoma, currently 5.5 percent. The measure would also permit the company to receive rebates on the taxable payroll paid by players from opposing teams when they play in the city.

If the team relocates, it will bring 170 jobs with a $74 million payroll to the state, officials have said. The rebate will be about $4 million a year and $60 million over its 15-year life.

Opponents of the plan have said it is unnecessary because the team has already announced its intention to relocate and the team’s millionaire owners do not need a tax break. “This is not what the quality Jobs Act was meant to be. I look at it as corporate welfare,” Joyner said. David Glover, a citizen who has spoken out against the plan, urged lawmakers to oppose the Sonics deal. Glover carried a sign in the Capitol rotunda that resembled a check and was made out for more than $3.3 million. He said that is what Oklahoma taxpayers will rebate to the team each year for the salaries of 16 Sonics basketball players. “It will be by far the most money back for the least people ever,” Glover said.

State Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City, who voted against the plan on Monday, said Price urged him to vote yes in a telephone conversation.“He just wanted me to support the Sonics deal,” Lindley said. But Lindley said Price did not indicate the team would not relocate if the tax incentive did not pass. “He just said it would help if it would be passed,” Lindley said. “They’re hitting the Democrats pretty hard because they probably need some.”

Lindley said he does not plan to change his vote. State Rep. Jeff Hickman, R-Dacoma, voted for the Sonics tax package after the House approved an amendment creating economic development incentives for rural areas like his northwestern Oklahoma district. But Hickman said he now plans to vote against it unless he receives a commitment from House leaders that rural economic development will become a priority.“We have some very serious issues involving rural areas that we need to talk about. I think the rural members are tired of being run over,” Hickman said.

Opponents of the plan have said it is unnecessary because the team has already announced its intention to relocate and the team’s millionaire owners do not need a tax break. “This is not what the quality Jobs Act was meant to be. I look at it as corporate welfare,” Joyner said. David Glover, a citizen who has spoken out against the plan, urged lawmakers to oppose the Sonics deal. Glover carried a sign in the Capitol rotunda that resembled a check and was made out for more than $3.3 million. He said that is what Oklahoma taxpayers will rebate to the team each year for the salaries of 16 Sonics basketball players. “It will be by far the most money back for the least people ever,” Glover said.


What these people don't understand is this isn't about just luring a team here and then ignoring it.....

It's like buying a new car but then NEVER changing the oil or doing any maintenance because you already paid for the car.....

This is an issue about doing what we can as a community to keep our market viable and thriving.... it's not like there won't still be growth that the city and the citizens will reap because of the NBA even after the rebates......

And I get the feeling that David Glover will pretty much find something about this team to complain about.... first it was the arena, now the rebates..... what's next? Carrying a sign in front of the Ford Center to protest the prices of hot dogs and beer at the games......

Glover would be more persusive if he would just stick to the truth and make his point using facts. It is 75 position not 16. When you have to lie, oops I mean mis-represent the truth, to help prove your point it really detracts from your point. DG can still oppose the plan using the 75 number but he knows he won't get as many supporters. That means he is try to take advantage of the uninformed to push his personal agenda. Nice legacy DG.

P.S. Yes Glover will be protesting hotdog prices at the Ford Center. Is there any doubt that he won't? He is a man possesed. Thanks for hanging with him kooks.

I think Glover just likes to be anti-popular opinion!

> He is a man possesed. Thanks for hanging with him kooks.

way, way funnier than the slew of Gundy tirade spinoffs :)

i think the idea of extending the rebate to the NBA only makes sense. During lean times (which COULD happen. ...), the rebate will only ensure the team's success in Oklahoma City.

That being said, I do NOT like/agree with how the bill is written. I do NOT think the rebate should be awarded to visiting players's payroll taxes since they DO NOT RESIDE IN OKLAHOMA and THEIR JOBS ARE NOT IN OKLAHOMA and THEY DO NOT ADD TO OKLAHOMA CITY'S JOB MARKET - all of which are conditions/intentions of the Quality Jobs program.

Since the program is not met in this case, the visiting-player/coach/trainer clause should be removed from the bill.

Tax breaks for companies that bring real jobs for real people to Oklahoma is what Quality Jobs was all about. Not in my wildest dreams did I think that would one day include, in a twisted and perverse manner, celebrity millionaire salaries. Spin it any way you want, this is a travesty and an embarrassment. Corporate welfare at one of its most extreme examples. Start the spin - deep down, I think even the biggest homers for this whole basketball thing knows it's not what Quality Jobs was/is all about.

What these people don't understand is this isn't about just luring a team here and then ignoring it.....

No, we understand exactly. This is about long-term socializing of cost and privatizing of profit. This will go on for decades to come.


Since the program is not met in this case, the visiting-player/coach/trainer clause should be removed from the bill.

This boosts Bennett's image with the other owners, since every one of them will benefit. And they can go to their own state legislatures and demand parity.

I guess when two MLB teams play an exhibition at the ballpark, we'll send their owners money, too.


Tax breaks for companies that bring real jobs for real people to Oklahoma is what Quality Jobs was all about.

Quality Jobs was all about tax breaks for people with money and political influence – nothing more. Again, look at the historical record of 'job creation' in this state.

Quality Jobs was all about tax breaks for people with money and political influence – nothing more. Again, look at the historical record of 'job creation' in this state.

While I agree that has certainly been the result - it wasn't the "spirit" of the bill as presented to Oklahomans.
I opposed it then - and I oppose it now.

This is an AP article btw....

Glover would be more persusive if he would just stick to the truth and make his point using facts. It is 75 position not 16. When you have to lie, oops I mean mis-represent the truth, to help prove your point it really detracts from your point. DG can still oppose the plan using the 75 number but he knows he won't get as many supporters. That means he is try to take advantage of the uninformed to push his personal agenda. Nice legacy DG.

P.S. Yes Glover will be protesting hotdog prices at the Ford Center. Is there any doubt that he won't? He is a man possesed. Thanks for hanging with him kooks.
Kerry, I guess you could classify me as one of Glovers "Kooks". That is until now.

In the past I opposed the Practice Facility, yet they got it. Most recently I've opposed the the Payroll Tax Rebate. Nevertheless, that is going to happen as well.

Therefore, I've succumb to the realization that the time has come for me to follow that age old adage, which is,"if you can't beat um, join um". From this day forward I will strive to become a more positive and progressive citizen, and not an obsructionist.

No doubt, your right, Glover is going to protest hot dog prices. Which brings me to my point. We can stop his hot dog tirade dead in its tracks, I have solution, a plan if you will, to do this.

We give the Sonics in the form of a rebate the City's $400,000 (give or take) portion of the naming rights for the Ford Center. The Sonics will then reduce the price of a hot dog by 25%. Poof, Glovers high hot dog argument will have no merit.

Reduced hot dog prices will mean more people will be able to come and enjoy the NBA. This means more ticket sales, more team revenue, which will greatly enhance the teams bottom line. This in turn will insure that OKC remains a "BIG LEAGUE CITY" for many, many years to come.

The $400,000 loss in availible revenue to the Citys 800 million dollar budget is nothing. A drop in the bucket. I can live with an extra pot hole or two.

Looks like the Sonics are already asking you more from you than you want to give them. If you do somehow manage to get the Sonics, you'll realize just how hard it is to keep a pro team.

i don't think glover understands the concept of running a successful business. just because bennett has a substantial amount of cash, doesn't exempt him from some type of incentive/reward in doing business here. one of the arguments being put forth in the sonics' case vs seattle is the fact that they can't make money with the type of lease they have with key arena. i would think that owning an nba franchise is a risky venture. there are so many factors at play that can determine whether it is successful or not.
anyway... there is an argument out there that nba can't thrive here. a whole lot of people are gonna be expecting us to fail. this a chance for oklahoma of late to be re-introduced to the world, there is quite a lot riding on the sucess of this venture / nba experiment.

btw, does it apper to anyone else that dg just has a problem with rich folks?

Although I have some issues with using the Quality Jobs program to support the team, what it may have been designed to do is remove the concern that will exist about the amount Bennett will be able to receive for a television contract in OKC.

To move from the 12th to the 45th largest television market, to the owners, indicates a drop in revenues, which is one of Mark Cuban's points. It may end up being a misconception, if the Sonics' owners can craft an television deal that shows games throughout the state, and perhaps in some neighboring cities such as Wichita, Joplin, Springfield. Interestingly, the Sonics' television contract in Seattle was only $10 million a year, whereas the contract in Salt Lake City is $12 million a year. So, some of the objection may be due to perception and uncertainty, but I suspect it was an attempt to negate the drop in revenue due to market size that was behind this move. There is a big concern regarding smaller markets within the ownership group, as some of the smaller markets have been asking for revenue sharing, which is, of course, of concern to some of the bigger markets.

Andy157 - I am not saying you can't be an obstructionist. Obstruct all you want you. Just use facts when you do it. DG makes most of his stuff up. If you find that someone you support isn't playing with the facts then don't repeat them and then use the excuse that those are their numbers not mine. Not saying you personally did that but DG did when he came up with his $150 per person tax or whatever the number is.

How hard is it to just be honest?

Here is another example. Was the Ford Center vote a tax increase? No it wasn't. It was a continuation of an existing tax. The anti-Ford Center people lied when they said it was a tax increase. It is just that simple. The tax rate remained the same. There is no "depends on how you look at" excuse unless you want to lie about it. Again, not say you personally did this but others did.

I'll disagree with you on that one Kerry. Bottom line to me is a five year 1 cent tax is voted on yes/no with the express inclusion of an ending date. From the moment of the yes vote, the expiration date is known for when the increased penny will cease to be.

The recent vote, to begin upon the already agreed expiration and automatic reduction of the existing tax base, is in fact an increase from the planned drop back to today's level, again for a time certain.

It's a word game used to pass it the first time, and then thereafter, to apply it to other purposes, all the time saying no increase. Yet, it is an increase since you are asking folks to vote away a time stamped reduction of today's tax rate.

To be a true no increase, the original tax vote should be based on yes/no for a penny, the first five years to be devoted to X, and then expires ONLY IF the public does not vote yes to dedicate it to some other purpose. Then of course, you lose the bennie of the temporary increase. How many 5 year periods have the good citizens now agreed to, and how many more will they for the 'temporary' five year tax.

I'm not opposed to the FC vote, and if I were in the area as a voter, I would have voted for it. Hang the NBA, it's good for the arena and thus OKC as a whole.

But the whole let's make our temp tax extend out for a new purpose and do away from the planned reduction and claim wiping out a planned for, voted in reduction in the tax base is the same as having no increase, that's the word game if ever there was one, at least from where I sit. To hold otherwise is to say the tax was never meant to be temporary, only its purpose was.

Kevin - you are correct that it was an extension of a temporary tax but it was not a tax increase. The tax rate stayed the same. Let's say you work for employer XYZ and on January 1 you are supposed to get a pay increase of $1 per hour. However, on Dec 31 you get a letter that says sorry, You are only going to get a $0.50 increase. On January 1 do you get a 50 cent incease or 50 cent decrease? Of course everyone know you got a 50 cent increase.

What you are doing is falling into the trap of base-line budgeting and that is a slippery slope. For example, I could say that per capita income in Oklahoma has gone up over the past 10 years in Oklahoma so they original 1 cent tax is actually now a tax cut because it wasn't indexed to infaltion or growth in income. 1 cent is now a smaller percentage of the average income so the effective tax rate went down. Is anyone going to buy that arguement? Why not? It is true. Don't fall into the base-line budgeting trick.

wow, we don't even have the team, and bennett is already making demands. what's crazy is that most of our legislators are bending over backwards to give him whatever he wants. clay bennett will screw us to make (or keep from losing) money, just like he's doing to seattle. business is business, he doesn't care what state he's in.

I'll disagree with you on that one Kerry. Bottom line to me is a five year 1 cent tax is voted on yes/no with the express inclusion of an ending date. From the moment of the yes vote, the expiration date is known for when the increased penny will cease to be.

The recent vote, to begin upon the already agreed expiration and automatic reduction of the existing tax base, is in fact an increase from the planned drop back to today's level, again for a time certain.

It's a word game used to pass it the first time, and then thereafter, to apply it to other purposes, all the time saying no increase. Yet, it is an increase since you are asking folks to vote away a time stamped reduction of today's tax rate.

To be a true no increase, the original tax vote should be based on yes/no for a penny, the first five years to be devoted to X, and then expires ONLY IF the public does not vote yes to dedicate it to some other purpose. Then of course, you lose the bennie of the temporary increase. How many 5 year periods have the good citizens now agreed to, and how many more will they for the 'temporary' five year tax.

I'm not opposed to the FC vote, and if I were in the area as a voter, I would have voted for it. Hang the NBA, it's good for the arena and thus OKC as a whole.

But the whole let's make our temp tax extend out for a new purpose and do away from the planned reduction and claim wiping out a planned for, voted in reduction in the tax base is the same as having no increase, that's the word game if ever there was one, at least from where I sit. To hold otherwise is to say the tax was never meant to be temporary, only its purpose was.True. And very well said. Semantics in its truest definition.

Great info on the tv contract stuff Betts! very interesting!!!!

Blazerfan11 - It kind of takes some wind out of the Seattle sails doesn't it. They actually make $2 million less in Seattle than the Jazz make in Utah. I guess there is something to be said for being the only pro team in town.

There is a lot to be said! There is so much more to this than the average Joe on the street knows, and that is why there is this ideological fog out there with those who oppose the subsidies for the ball team. One problem is the media, and the fact that they do not educate people on these matters, and we have only ourselves to blame for this since we support them.

Blazerfan11 - It kind of takes some wind out of the Seattle sails doesn't it. They actually make $2 million less in Seattle than the Jazz make in Utah. I guess there is something to be said for being the only pro team in town.

Do we have a link to back this up?

wow, we don't even have the team, and bennett is already making demands. what's crazy is that most of our legislators are bending over backwards to give him whatever he wants. clay bennett will screw us to make (or keep from losing) money, just like he's doing to seattle. business is business, he doesn't care what state he's in.


Donuteyes, would you mind telling me just exactly how Clay Bennett is going to screw you and how he's screwing Seattle?

Although I have some issues with using the Quality Jobs program to support the team, what it may have been designed to do is remove the concern that will exist about the amount Bennett will be able to receive for a television contract in OKC.

To move from the 12th to the 45th largest television market, to the owners, indicates a drop in revenues, which is one of Mark Cuban's points. It may end up being a misconception, if the Sonics' owners can craft an television deal that shows games throughout the state, and perhaps in some neighboring cities such as Wichita, Joplin, Springfield. Interestingly, the Sonics' television contract in Seattle was only $10 million a year, whereas the contract in Salt Lake City is $12 million a year. So, some of the objection may be due to perception and uncertainty, but I suspect it was an attempt to negate the drop in revenue due to market size that was behind this move. There is a big concern regarding smaller markets within the ownership group, as some of the smaller markets have been asking for revenue sharing, which is, of course, of concern to some of the bigger markets.

Betts, if moving to such a small T.V. market causes the owners such grave concern due to the the drop in revenues, there is a solution. Which is.

The City and the State should create, and then impose, a broadcasting fee/tax (user tax) on all clubs, bars, sports bars, and resturants that air Sonics games as a service to their patrons. This user tax/fee could be based upon the establishments gross sales revenues. Then, inturn, be rebated back to the Sonics owners. This tax would not adversly affect business due to the fact they would simply pass the tax onto the patron.

In fact one could say it would enhance their revenues, due to the fact more people will be coming in to have a beer (or 7), eat a burger, and watch the Sonics play on T.V.

As citizens, we must understand. If the Sonics are to survive in this market, which they must, then we as tax payers must be willing to, and become much more creative in our thinking to insure they do.

Nice try Andy157. Service establishments are already charged a tax to show sporting events. The are charged by the league, the cable/sat provider, the city, state, and federal government. Try this little expierment. Call DirectTV and see how much a residential plan is for NBA League Pass. Then call back and tell them you are a sports bar and see how much more it cost. Now if you and DG want to lead some kind of effort to get the fees diveted to the Sonics then be my guest.

Nice try Andy157. Service establishments are already charged a tax to show sporting events. The are charged by the league, the cable/sat provider, the city, state, and federal government. Try this little expierment. Call DirectTV and see how much a residential plan is for NBA League Pass. Then call back and tell them you are a sports bar and see how much more it cost. Now if you and DG want to lead some kind of effort to get the fees diveted to the Sonics then be my guest.What do you mean "nice try"? Read my post again, I said "create", as in new. This would be charged in addition to all those things you mentioned, but charged only for Sonic games. Which is it Kerry, do you want to help the Sonics, or not? Here I am trying to find new ways in which to funnel more revenue into the owners pockets and your fighting me. So if you and Glover want to fight this, then fine. Be my guest.

Sorry Andy, I though you were operating under the assumption that sports bars aren't currently paying to show the games.

Donuteyes, would you mind telling me just exactly how Clay Bennett is going to screw you and how he's screwing Seattle?
yeah, that's what i'm wondering. he's not assured of making money in the long run... okc is a largely unproven market.

can you believe this guy... bringing the NBA to town... why is he screwing us over like that!!
hah!

Sounds like the NBA is increasing revenue sharing. If I heard correctly, the annual $30 million dispersal is being increased to $49 million. That will help, but small markets are definitely a risk.

Sounds like the NBA is increasing revenue sharing. If I heard correctly, the annual $30 million dispersal is being increased to $49 million. That will help, but small markets are definitely a risk.Betts, those small markets would not be at such risk if they would implement my User Tax/ Broadcasting Fee plan. Would they?

Sorry Andy, I though you were operating under the assumption that sports bars aren't currently paying to show the games.So you would support my plan as a way to increase revenue for the Sonics?

I'm on-board with your plan Andy157. You draw up the petition and I will give you all of the on-line support I can.

I'm on-board with your plan Andy157. You draw up the petition and I will give you all of the on-line support I can.Thanks Kerry, I knew I could count on you. I'm also working on a plan to address, and alleviate the problem in our school system that deals with vulgar/inappropriate gang attire. I'll get back to you when I iron out some of the finer details. But in general my plan says that all K-12 age school children would be forced to wear uniforms to school as a means to reduce violence, and increase Sonic revenues at the same time.

ok people, this is making me upset.

why is it that people from outside of OKC primarily, are saying that THEY are subsidizing the NBA with regard to the $60M payroll tax exemption that will go to the Sonics owners????

GUYS IT IS A PAYROLL TAX EXEMPTION ON JOBS THAT CURRENTLY DONT EXIST IN OKC OR THE STATE.

GET IT"?"?????????

Nobody is subsidizing NOTHING. tulsa is doing NOTHING!!!

All this is going to do, is CAP the tax owed on the NEW JOBS the NBA will bring into Oklahoma City. There is no make-up for those dollars that otherwise would ahve been collected.

Its not like, ok, we take out $4M a year from say Tulsa and give it to the Sonics owners.

It IS like, we dont collect $4M a year from the Sonics owners that we OTHERWISE would have collected had the bill not been instated. It is NOT a loss to the state. And it is NOT a loss or subsidy from Tulsa or the State.

To have a subsidy, you have to take money from one place and put it somewhere else. in the case of the NBA, no money will go from somewhere into Clay's pocket. Instead, he just won't have to pay as MUCH, that's it. The state would SILL get revenue on the 5% rate on the new jobs, which is still marginal revenue and AGAIN, NOT A SUBSIDY - NO MONEY IS GOING FROM HERE OR THERE TO THE SONICS. .....................................

It is in much the same way, that the state extended a sales tax exemption to the city for the Hornets tickets. The state didn't subsidize anything.

Could someone who has an account on the tulsanow forum go there and post this fact? I refuse to open an account there but THEY need to realize they aint subsidizing anything and stop trying to leach off of THEIR MUCH HATED big city brother.

here is the forum link, by the way.

TulsaNow Forum - Tulsa tax payers to fund Hornets (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9739)

Tulsa or the state isn't subsidizing or funding anything, its only an exemption the top portion of the payroll taxes on the NEW JOBS that will come in. .....

PLEASE, somebody go there and articulate that to your so called 'educated' brotheren to the NE. ...... so they can get off their high horse.

As I've said earlier, I think this only applies to the employee tax that the owners pay on "their payroll", it does not apply to the payroll taxes employees pay or(office and players), or the state tax on their profits.

Most people don't understand that you pay $100 into payroll tax, the employer pays in approx. $150 as their share, for a total of $250. Everyone seems to think they pay all their payroll taxes. That also includes any benefits you receive such as your health insurance, etc.

All this does is reduce the amount the government keeps. So the State will increase the amount of taxes it collect, plus the sales taxes all of these new jobs provide.

exactly Saberman.

I don't know why we have people thinking the state is "giving" anything to the NBA, they're NOT. There is NO SUBSIDY.

We're not taking money from A or B or Tulsa to give to the Sonics. .. The ONLY place that could be said to be subsidizing the Sonics is the City of Oklahoma City (and even that is incorrect since the city is not giving money directly to the team but instead is paying for the arena upgrades, much of which would have been done anyways!)

Nope, as to the State - It's only a REDUCTION in what the Sonics would have to pay.

So Tulsa (and the rest of the state who think OKC owes them) can drop the state team name kick. SOMEONE WITH A TULSANOW ACCOUNT, PLEASE!!!! GO INFORM OUR SUPPOSEDLY ARTICULATE NEIGHBOURS.

exactly Saberman.

I don't know why we have people thinking the state is "giving" anything to the NBA, they're NOT. There is NO SUBSIDY.

We're not taking money from A or B or Tulsa to give to the Sonics. .. The ONLY place that could be said to be subsidizing the Sonics is the City of Oklahoma City (and even that is incorrect since the city is not giving money directly to the team but instead is paying for the arena upgrades, much of which would have been done anyways!)

Nope, as to the State - It's only a REDUCTION in what the Sonics would have to pay.

So Tulsa (and the rest of the state who think OKC owes them) can drop the state team name kick. SOMEONE WITH A TULSANOW ACCOUNT, PLEASE!!!! GO INFORM OUR SUPPOSEDLY ARTICULATE NEIGHBOURS.

No one in Tulsa has said a damn thing about what the name of your team should be. I, and I think this is very common, could care less. There has not been a word said on TulsaNow, or anywhere that I have seen or heard, about if the team should be called “Oklahoma City” or “Oklahoma. There is exactly zero debate about this in Tulsa, it’s all here, and here alone. There’s actually not even been a whole lot of press in Tulsa about the Sonics.

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.

I’m going to use very basic economics, and I will go slowing, and hopefully be “articulate” enough to get this point across to you.

There’s something called “discretionary” dollars that exist in an economy. These are dollars that used on, among other things, on entertainment spending. There is a finite amount of these dollars that exist in the Oklahoma economy. These dollars are taxed today in several ways. Most commonly in sales taxes (which are mostly local), income taxes paid by the people that employed in the service/entertainment industry and with corporate taxes.

The Sonics will bring almost zero new dollars into the Oklahoma economy and will not increase discretionary spending on entertainment to any large degree. Nearly all of money spent on tickets to the Sonics would have been spent somewhere else in the Oklahoma economy. But, with this tax kickback the taxes that would have been generated by these dollars now that they are generated by the Sonics will no longer generate the same tax revenue that they would have if the Sonics did not exist. This will erode EXISTING tax revenue going to the state and means very specifically that everyone in Oklahoma is now paying for YOUR team. Those tax dollars will have to either be replaced or spending on other services in the state will have to be reduced.

The rest of Oklahoma again is supporting Oklahoma City, to the tune of $160 million. Be at least a little thankful.

Was that articulate enough for you?

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.


Hold it right there, Swake, the tax dollars all of you are talking about don't even exit yet. The team isn't even here yet to begin generating revenue. And, yes, there is debaite on the Tulsa forum about the tax rebate issue. And the figure isn't even $160 million. The ESTIMATE (there is your first clue about the tax dollars produced that don't exist yet) is from $60-$100 million.

Was that articulate enough for you?

So lets see, Johnson Federated Trucking just moved to Muskogee and they qualified for the Quality Jobs program. So now they have to change their name to Oklahoma Federated Trucking?

And where did the $160 million figure come from?

Actually, if you want to make the argument that the tax rebates are a giveaway, it would be like this....

You get a brand new Best Buy credit card in the mail. You've never had one before - brand spanking new. You quickly find you owe Best Buy $5,000.00 and your options are pretty limited. You owe $5,000.00. That's what it says on the bill. You pay it in full, just like everyone else who has a bill from Best Buy and wanted to pay it off to keep from paying the ungodly interest rates. But, if Best Buy had a meeting and the manager said, "Let's be nice, old Joe over there is a new customer and he paid us $5,000.00 which, yes, is what everybody else would owe if that's what it said on the bill.....But, I think Joe needs a little help - let's send a little of what he paid us back in the form of a check for $2,000.00." Everybody in the meeting looks at the manager and says - in unison - "Why should we give Joe anything? Everybody else would owe the full $5,000.00!" The ever helpful General Manager says, "Oh, we're not really giving anything to him - he paid his bill, we're just rebating $2,000 because, you know, we make 90% profit on that item so we're not out a dime, we've made money in fact! And, if he hadn't have spent that money with us - we would have never seen it anyway." The others look at each other and one says, "So we're going to GIVE Joe $2,000, that's the bottom line." The manager looks at all in the room shaking his head and says, "Well, not exactly, let me explain again....." All the others in the meeting are looking at each other with knowing smiles because they all know that any way Mr. Manager wants to spin it - Best Buy is giving Joe money, money that everybody else in the same situation would have to pay.

The moral of the story? If it looks like a handout, smells like a handout and walks like a handout - it's a handout.

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.


Hold it right there, Swake, the tax dollars all of you are talking about don't even exit yet. The team isn't even here yet to begin generating revenue. And, yes, there is debaite on the Tulsa forum about the tax rebate issue. And the figure isn't even $160 million. The ESTIMATE (there is your first clue about the tax dollars produced that don't exist yet) is from $60-$100 million.

Was that articulate enough for you?

But that's where you are wrong, the tax dollars do exist today, this is my point. The tax dollars are not paid by the Sonics currently, but the spending that drives these tax dollars certainly DOES exist.


So lets see, Johnson Federated Trucking just moved to Muskogee and they qualified for the Quality Jobs program. So now they have to change their name to Oklahoma Federated Trucking?

And where did the $160 million figure come from?

I could care less what the team is called, I'm not saying anything about what the damn name will be.

And lastly, why do the Sonics need this money? The Hornets didn't.

Is it because it's the Gaylords?

Part of the problem is to many of you are listening to the malcontent Glover, anyone want to bet that he is going to run for some office.

Everyone seems to thing that economics is a zero some game. If money is spent here it is lost somewhere else. Granted some money spent would have been spent somewhere else, but to put a $60 -$160 million price tag on it is simple unprovable.

Granted the team is getting a good deal at the FC, but OKC and Oklahoma will gain from revenue from events held at the FC that would not have occurred unless upgrades were made.

By having the team in OKC, we hope to entice new, and existing out of state business to open or move to Oklahoma. Now there is no guarantee that that will happen either, but unless we have the for site to improve quality of life here we will have little or no chance of new growth.

Part of the problem is to many of you are listening to the malcontent Glover, anyone want to bet that he is going to run for some office.

Everyone seems to thing that economics is a zero some game. If money is spent here it is lost somewhere else. Granted some money spent would have been spent somewhere else, but to put a $60 -$160 million price tag on it is simple unprovable.

Granted the team is getting a good deal at the FC, but OKC and Oklahoma will gain from revenue from events held at the FC that would not have occurred unless upgrades were made.

By having the team in OKC, we hope to entice new, and existing out of state business to open or move to Oklahoma. Now there is no guarantee that that will happen either, but unless we have the for site to improve quality of life here we will have little or no chance of new growth.

No, you hope to encourage new spending and new businesses and hope to improve the image not of Oklahoma, but of Oklahoma City. Look at all the furor over the name here. This NBA team is a local endeavor and it's impact will be felt locally, in Oklahoma City. If I lived in Oklahoma City I would have supported the tax to improve the Ford Center. Getting this team will be a great thing for your city and it should be funded locally.

Once you start dipping into state tax dollars my support goes away. Do you think that maybe you would want to go visit Austin because Dallas has a NBA team? The impact of the team outside of the OKC metro is non-existent. This is another example of the State of Oklahoma providing one level of services to Oklahoma City and a much lower set of services to the rest of the state.

I might even be in favor of this tax plan if it was generally available throughout the state and was used on bricks and mortar infrastructure for the team. If it was funding the improvements to the Ford Center and a similar rebate could be used by Tulsa on a downtown baseball park I could possibly be in favor of it. But to have it just pad the bottom line of a single team owned in large part by a relative of the Gaylords? I know you are all excited about getting a team but how does this not stink?

Solitude - what you described happens all of the time at Best Buy. They are called reward zone points.

Swake - The Hornets didn't need the money because the City and Bennett's group agreed to cover any losses the Hornets might incur.

No one in Tulsa has said a damn thing about what the name of your team should be. I, and I think this is very common, could care less. There has not been a word said on TulsaNow, or anywhere that I have seen or heard, about if the team should be called “Oklahoma City” or “Oklahoma. There is exactly zero debate about this in Tulsa, it’s all here, and here alone. There’s actually not even been a whole lot of press in Tulsa about the Sonics.

That said, I am upset about the state redirecting $160 million in existing tax dollars to YOUR team.

I’m going to use very basic economics, and I will go slowing, and hopefully be “articulate” enough to get this point across to you.

There’s something called “discretionary” dollars that exist in an economy. These are dollars that used on, among other things, on entertainment spending. There is a finite amount of these dollars that exist in the Oklahoma economy. These dollars are taxed today in several ways. Most commonly in sales taxes (which are mostly local), income taxes paid by the people that employed in the service/entertainment industry and with corporate taxes.

The Sonics will bring almost zero new dollars into the Oklahoma economy and will not increase discretionary spending on entertainment to any large degree. Nearly all of money spent on tickets to the Sonics would have been spent somewhere else in the Oklahoma economy. But, with this tax kickback the taxes that would have been generated by these dollars now that they are generated by the Sonics will no longer generate the same tax revenue that they would have if the Sonics did not exist. This will erode EXISTING tax revenue going to the state and means very specifically that everyone in Oklahoma is now paying for YOUR team. Those tax dollars will have to either be replaced or spending on other services in the state will have to be reduced.

The rest of Oklahoma again is supporting Oklahoma City, to the tune of $160 million. Be at least a little thankful.

Was that articulate enough for you?

You are making an assumption that all discretionary money is spent in Oklahoma. That's just not true. I don't have figures but would bet there are millions spent outside of Oklahoma and thus not taxed in Oklahoma. Might be that having an NBA team here in Oklahoma will keep some of that money here and thus be taxes in some way or another such as hotel and food taxes.

I could care less what the team is called, I'm not saying anything about what the damn name will be.

Well Swake, glad to know that you care about the team name. Clearly if you could care less, then you must care at least a little bit. If you didn't care at all, it wouldn't be possible to care less! (Or maybe you meant that you couldn't care less)

No, you hope to encourage new spending and new businesses and hope to improve the image not of Oklahoma, but of Oklahoma City. Look at all the furor over the name here. This NBA team is a local endeavor and it's impact will be felt locally, in Oklahoma City. If I lived in Oklahoma City I would have supported the tax to improve the Ford Center. Getting this team will be a great thing for your city and it should be funded locally.

Once you start dipping into state tax dollars my support goes away. Do you think that maybe you would want to go visit Austin because Dallas has a NBA team? The impact of the team outside of the OKC metro is non-existent. This is another example of the State of Oklahoma providing one level of services to Oklahoma City and a much lower set of services to the rest of the state.

I might even be in favor of this tax plan if it was generally available throughout the state and was used on bricks and mortar infrastructure for the team. If it was funding the improvements to the Ford Center and a similar rebate could be used by Tulsa on a downtown baseball park I could possibly be in favor of it. But to have it just pad the bottom line of a single team owned in large part by a relative of the Gaylords? I know you are all excited about getting a team but how does this not stink?

You are assuming that all of this business is going to be in OKC, you need to check out the the Business & Transportation section of the Outlook 2008 in the Sunday paper. Since 1994, companies "across OK" have received more then $526 million dollars in rebates under this program. I'm not saying it's a perfect program, but other states are coping our model in order to bring new jobs to their states.

Once again this is not about taking away current tax dollars, but rebating 5% to 6% of payroll taxes on "NEW", high paying jobs.

The FC was not built with state tax dollar, but with tax dollar collected in OKC. Bought and paid for. Now the income derived from the FC go's to the city. The basketball team does not receive any income from other events held at the FC.

Now we can debate whether the team is getting a sweet deal on the whole package, and we are taking a lot on faith that this will improve OKC and the surrounding area, but wasn't what this whole MAPS thing was about in the first place. We took it on faith, that if we built all of these projects, that it would hopefully improve the quality of life for all. This was the vision that Ron Norick had for OKC.

Solitude - what you described happens all of the time at Best Buy. They are called reward zone points.

No. Reward Zone points are for everybody. The rules are the same.

Once again this is not about taking away current tax dollars, but rebating 5% to 6% of payroll taxes on "NEW", high paying jobs.

That's truly funny. The NBA gives, "high paying jobs" for workers a whole new meaning on planet Earth. Please, keep in mind, we're talking celebrity millionaire salaries here - and a league and owners who are willing to pay them these absurd salaries. These are hardly the "high paying jobs" the Quality Jobs Program was all about. It was never intended to rebate payroll tax on "workers" like Kevin Garnett of the Celtics. This "workers" wage: $24,000.000.00 per year.

You are assuming that all of this business is going to be in OKC, you need to check out the the Business & Transportation section of the Outlook 2008 in the Sunday paper. Since 1994, companies "across OK" have received more then $526 million dollars in rebates under this program. I'm not saying it's a perfect program, but other states are coping our model in order to bring new jobs to their states.

Once again this is not about taking away current tax dollars, but rebating 5% to 6% of payroll taxes on "NEW", high paying jobs.

The FC was not built with state tax dollar, but with tax dollar collected in OKC. Bought and paid for. Now the income derived from the FC go's to the city. The basketball team does not receive any income from other events held at the FC.

Now we can debate whether the team is getting a sweet deal on the whole package, and we are taking a lot on faith that this will improve OKC and the surrounding area, but wasn't what this whole MAPS thing was about in the first place. We took it on faith, that if we built all of these projects, that it would hopefully improve the quality of life for all. This was the vision that Ron Norick had for OKC.

You misunderstand. I am in favor of the quality jobs act. But not all new jobs are created the same and service industry jobs should be excluded entirely. Again, these NBA jobs may be “new” to the people that will occupy them but the money that will pay those salaries already exists in the Oklahoma economy today.

An example. Let’s say there’s a McDonald’s in Bugtown, Oklahoma. Would you give tax incentives and quality jobs money to someone wanting to open a Burger King next door? Bugtown only has so many people wanting to buy so many burgers. Burger King is not really going to add any new jobs or money into Bugtowns economy. It’s just going to divide the existing burger market in Bugtown between two stores. Over time the net impact of the Burger King is zero on the Bugtown economy.

The Sonics moving here bring no new money into the state economy. They are supported by local money. Now if Microsoft wants to move a design studio that is currently located in Seattle to Oklahoma City, that really would be new money in our economy and should be eligible for the Quality Jobs act. Microsoft would pay for that design studio through sales of their products around the world. The Sonics will be supported by local spending on tickets, ads, merchandise and the like. The number of tickets sold to people from out of state will be very small, and the likelihood that such a visitor would have come to Oklahoma City purely for an NBA game is even smaller. The Sonics should not be eligible for this tax rebate and the state should not be supporting them in this way.

Once again, these are NOT new jobs to the Oklahoma economy.

You are assuming that all of this business is going to be in OKC, you need to check out the the Business & Transportation section of the Outlook 2008 in the Sunday paper. Since 1994, companies "across OK" have received more then $526 million dollars in rebates under this program. I'm not saying it's a perfect program, but other states are coping our model in order to bring new jobs to their states.

Once again this is not about taking away current tax dollars, but rebating 5% to 6% of payroll taxes on "NEW", high paying jobs.

The FC was not built with state tax dollar, but with tax dollar collected in OKC. Bought and paid for. Now the income derived from the FC go's to the city. The basketball team does not receive any income from other events held at the FC.

Now we can debate whether the team is getting a sweet deal on the whole package, and we are taking a lot on faith that this will improve OKC and the surrounding area, but wasn't what this whole MAPS thing was about in the first place. We took it on faith, that if we built all of these projects, that it would hopefully improve the quality of life for all. This was the vision that Ron Norick had for OKC.

You misunderstand. I am in favor of the quality jobs act. But not all new jobs are created the same and service industry jobs should be excluded entirely. Again, these NBA jobs may be “new” to the people that will occupy them but the money that will pay those salaries already exists in the Oklahoma economy today.

An example. Let’s say there’s a McDonald’s in Bugtown, Oklahoma. Would you give tax incentives and quality jobs money to someone wanting to open a Burger King next door? Bugtown only has so many people wanting to buy so many burgers. Burger King is not really going to add any new jobs or money into Bugtowns economy. It’s just going to divide the existing burger market in Bugtown between two stores. Over time the net impact of the Burger King is zero on the Bugtown economy.

The Sonics moving here bring no new money into the state economy. NBA teams are supported by local money. Now if Microsoft wants to move a design studio that is currently located in Seattle to Oklahoma City, that really would be new money in our economy and should be eligible for the Quality Jobs act. Microsoft would pay for that design studio through sales of their products around the world. The Sonics will be supported by local spending on tickets, ads, merchandise and the like. The number of tickets sold to people from out of state will be very small, and the likelihood that such a visitor would have come to Oklahoma City purely for an NBA game is even smaller. The Sonics should not be eligible for this tax rebate and the state should not be supporting them in this way.

Once again, these are NOT new jobs to the Oklahoma economy.

Why are we all fighting over things that have already happen? We should be making better, and more productive use of our time and energy. We need to find a way, or come up with a solution to reimburse the Sonics owners for the legel fees they have been out, or will be out, to get us our team. We are the ones who will benefit, why should they have to pay. It's not right.

Why are we all fighting over things that have already happen? We should be making better, and more productive use of our time and energy. We need to find a way, or come up with a solution to reimburse the Sonics owners for the legel fees they have been out, or will be out, to get us our team. We are the ones who will benefit, why should they have to pay. It's not right.

I agree, we are arguing over something thats already done, but using their argument then we don't want any new business, because that takes away from existing businesses. The theroy is, the more variety of business and entertainment we have the more likely new business from out of state comes in, and new people move here, and less people move away because the quality of life is better.

Granted most of these guys are over paid, and this does not take away from what they pay in taxes. But for every player there are 10(guess)people employed(trainers, sales, maintenance, etc.), getting benefit, buying houses, paying taxes, and spending money. Not all of those people live here now. Do you think they will just stay in OKC and never go to Tulsa, the lake, Roman Nose, or live in Edmond, Midwest City, or Piedmont, or Norman. The list could go on and on. Now you say how much are these few people going to effect the economy, but it is a start, the hope is that it will start the snowball rolling.

Or NOT, but unless we make the effort, were pretty sure it won't happen if we do nothing. Our legislature is pretty good at reneging on deals if they don't work out. Ask GM, oh we can't their gone.

I agree, we are arguing over something thats already done, but using their argument then we don't want any new business, because that takes away from existing businesses. The theroy is, the more variety of business and entertainment we have the more likely new business from out of state comes in, and new people move here, and less people move away because the quality of life is better.

Granted most of these guys are over paid, and this does not take away from what they pay in taxes. But for every player there are 10(guess)people employed(trainers, sales, maintenance, etc.), getting benefit, buying houses, paying taxes, and spending money. Not all of those people live here now. Do you think they will just stay in OKC and never go to Tulsa, the lake, Roman Nose, or live in Edmond, Midwest City, or Piedmont, or Norman. The list could go on and on. Now you say how much are these few people going to effect the economy, but it is a start, the hope is that it will start the snowball rolling.

Or NOT, but unless we make the effort, were pretty sure it won't happen if we do nothing. Our legislature is pretty good at reneging on deals if they don't work out. Ask GM, oh we can't their gone.

No...No...No. Forget about all of the other crap thats happen. Thats water under the bridge. What's important now is that we the taxpayers of this City (OKC) but more especially the State, find a way to reimburse the Sonics owners for any, and all, out of pocket expenses they have incurred to bring us our team. The owners are going to need our financial support now more than ever. These lawsuits they are facing will be expensive.

No. Reward Zone points are for everybody. The rules are the same.- Solitude

And the Quality Jobs prgram is for everyone also. If you meet the criteria of the program then your company qualifies. Just like Reqard Zone points at Best Buy. If you sign up for their program and spend $100 then you get a $5 gift card. But you have to spend the $100. Their program is designed to reward their customers that spend a lot of money at their store. Exacly like the Quality Jobs program is designed to bring quality jobs to Oklahoma.

That's truly funny. The NBA gives, "high paying jobs" for workers a whole new meaning on planet Earth. Please, keep in mind, we're talking celebrity millionaire salaries here - and a league and owners who are willing to pay them these absurd salaries. These are hardly the "high paying jobs" the Quality Jobs Program was all about. It was never intended to rebate payroll tax on "workers" like Kevin Garnett of the Celtics. This "workers" wage: $24,000.000.00 per year.

So would you have the same problem if we could lure some high salary execs?

Or do you just have a problem with people in Basketball trunks making a lot of money?

No...No...No. Forget about all of the other crap thats happen. Thats water under the bridge. What's important now is that we the taxpayers of this City (OKC) but more especially the State, find a way to reimburse the Sonics owners for any, and all, out of pocket expenses they have incurred to bring us our team. The owners are going to need our financial support now more than ever. These lawsuits they are facing will be expensive.

Is this satirical?


And the Quality Jobs prgram is for everyone also. If you meet the criteria of the program then your company qualifies. Just like Reqard Zone points at Best Buy. If you sign up for their program and spend $100 then you get a $5 gift card. But you have to spend the $100. Their program is designed to reward their customers that spend a lot of money at their store. Exacly like the Quality Jobs program is designed to bring quality jobs to Oklahoma.

The law had to be CHANGED for the Sonics. They did not qualify. Service industry jobs should not qualify.


I agree, we are arguing over something thats already done, but using their argument then we don't want any new business, because that takes away from existing businesses. The theroy is, the more variety of business and entertainment we have the more likely new business from out of state comes in, and new people move here, and less people move away because the quality of life is better.

I never said the team moving to Oklahoma City was not a good thing, but state support is inappropriate and the use of Quality Jobs to pad the bottom line is wrong.