View Full Version : Is Oklahoma City basketball purgatory?



z28james
01-08-2010, 10:18 PM
Pretty good ESPN article IMO.

I love how trolls and internet tuff guys trash OKC and its people in the comments , like its our fault their owners sold the team. They only cared when they lost their team to a smaller city who cares. Jealousy is a b*tch.

Is Oklahoma City an NBA purgatory or a fine place for ballers to chill? Scoop Jackson investigates. - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/100108&sportCat=nba)

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Funny thing about places we call the abyss. They never are what we think they are.

In the NBA, Oklahoma City is considered the abyss. It's the place where no player wants to be stuck. Nothing against OKC -- it used to be Sacremento, Vancouver, San Antonio and Milwaukee. Not only is the Thunder one of the least likely teams to get anyone in the 2010 free agent extravaganza which begins in July, but OKC is generally considered the last place on the NBA map any player would want to play. Not because of the organization or the fact it relocated from Seattle, but because, well, it's Oklahoma City.

But the city isn't what it's made out to be. Like Jon Gosselin masquerading as a good father, it's been misrepresented. As the Thunder's veteran point guard Kevin Ollie said, "It's not Miami or L.A., but it's cool here. Real chill."

"Chill" is not to be confused with "boring" or a form of social punishment. Chill is the life and lifestyle the Thunder have adopted. Star forward Kevin Durant, for whom it seems this outpost has become a perfect playground, said, "I come from a big city [Washington, D.C.] You can get tired of tall buildings after a while.

[+] EnlargeKevin Durant
Layne Murdoch/NBAE/Getty ImagesKevin Durant has said he wants to remain with the Thunder "as long as possible." But he can become
a free agent after next season.

"Man, I live across the street from a farm."

To some of the younger players in the league, Oklahoma City might seem like the NBA's version of Smallville. But the relative lack of late-night entertainment doesn't hinder the players on this squad. Instead, they found a way to turn the sublimely simple into a satisfying routine. They do the one thing almost no other NBA team does after home games: They stick together.

Enter Mickey Mantle's Steakhouse, which is the after-game spot, according to nearly everyone. From Thunder media director Brian Facchini to an usher working the game to one of the Thunder dancers to rookie sensation James Harden, they all say Mickey Mantle's is the place to be. It's a low-key, down-home version of the Mickey Mantle's in NYC.

The downtown entertainment district in Oklahoma City is known as Bricktown. It's the place where players have options. After almost every game, without fail, that's where they go. The squad, their friends and family, their agents, their shoe reps, the dancers, season-ticket holders and anyone else who wants to be down heads over to Mickey Mantle's to chill out.

Even though there are enough "spots" in Bricktown to make a player happy he isn't a member of the Utah Jazz, the Thunder players tend to call it a night relatively early. One player put it in perspective: "It's not like the selection of women is off the charts here." Which makes it a little easier for most of the squad to "play the crib" after Mickey Mantle's closes.

The funny thing is, nightlife has never made an NBA city. To most players, that's what the road is for. But how do Thunder players occupy themselves during daylight hours, when stir-craziness can often set in?

The great golf courses that can be found around the city mean little to these players; the squad is too young to make that other game a personal national pastime. Between the options of hanging out at Penn Square and Quail Springs malls, actually spending free time in the communities, driving to the Riverwind Casino in Norman or three hours south to Dallas, most Thunder players spend their time floating between one another's houses for barbecues and video games.

Thunder
Tim Heitman/US PresswireThe nucleus of Russell Westbrook, Jeff Green and Durant could make OKC an attractive destination -- if the Thunder can manage to keep them together.

"That's what they do," Facchini said. "Most of them stay around each other, in the same community and are around the same age, so what they do is just visit each other."

Which makes what is supposed to make the abyss livable.

But Oklahoma City has at least one thing that definitely appeals to players. The Thunder has a training facility unlike almost any other in the NBA. It's where the team practices and works out. To any player who thinks OKC is NBA purgatory, this place will make you thank a higher power than David Stern for allowing a trade to go through.

The facility has become an extreme home away from home. It's an old roller-skating rink that was tricked out into a state-of-the-art basketball factory where players have been known to hang out hours after practice is over. The oversized chairs and couches are all butter-soft leather. The sound system keeps Dream and Snoop blasting. There are so many flat screens you might almost mistake them for wallpaper. There are also two chefs on site to cook for the players.

If this is the abyss, where does the line start?

Funny thing when you become the main attraction in a place that is supposed to be your purgatory, but the people embrace you so tightly you find it impossible to let them down, or let them go. You begin to realize it ain't so bad.

Several Thunder players even alluded to the fact that being in OKC has allowed them to focus more on basketball than if the team were in another city.

"People always ask, 'Wouldn't you rather be in Miami or L.A.?'" Durant said. "I always tell them, 'No.' This place is perfect for me."

Scoop Jackson is a columnist for ESPN.com.

Spartan
01-08-2010, 10:37 PM
David Glover: THERE ARE TWO CHEFS COOKING FOR THESE PEOPLE AND A SOUND SYSTEM THAT WE PAID FOR BLASTING SNOOP?? [keels over]

Celebrator
01-08-2010, 11:03 PM
Loved this article. Great to hear all of that from the players.

venture
01-09-2010, 01:36 AM
Can you please try to keep topics in the relevant topic areas and search before opening a new thread?

http://www.okctalk.com/oklahoma-city-thunder/20435-article-espn-okc-basketball-purgatory.html

FormerFloridian
01-09-2010, 02:17 AM
It's articles like this one that the rest of the world needs to see more of. Hopefully they will stop seeing OKC as just some dust bowl and start seeing it for the potential that it has.

LakeEffect
01-09-2010, 06:06 AM
David Glover: THERE ARE TWO CHEFS COOKING FOR THESE PEOPLE AND A SOUND SYSTEM THAT WE PAID FOR BLASTING SNOOP?? [keels over]

Haha - David can't say that yet - this is the practice arena that the team bought, not the one being built.

dcsooner
01-09-2010, 06:35 AM
Maybe I am reading a different article but it was only Moderately complementary

LakeEffect
01-09-2010, 07:13 AM
Maybe I am reading a different article but it was only Moderately complementary

Yeah, I felt the same way.

lasomeday
01-09-2010, 07:21 AM
I thought the article was very bad. It was a backhanded compliment.

It basically said that OKC is so boring that the only thing to do here is eat at Mickey Mantle's, hang out at the each other's houses, and the gym.

It even dissed the women of OKC.

LakeEffect
01-09-2010, 07:44 AM
I thought the article was very bad. It was a backhanded compliment.

It basically said that OKC is so boring that the only thing to do here is eat at Mickey Mantle's, hang out at the each other's houses, and the gym.

It even dissed the women of OKC.

Certainly a failed attempt at being nice. It saddens me that people can't accept other people's way of living life. If it's not fast, famous and expensive, it's not good enough. The OKC lifestyle has obviously helped the team improve (and much faster than most would have expected). It should be celebrated much more than with back-handed compliments.

Oh yeah, I know plenty of ridiculously good-looking women here in OKC. I'm married to one too. :smile:

dcsooner
01-09-2010, 07:50 AM
I thought the article was very bad. It was a backhanded compliment.

It basically said that OKC is so boring that the only thing to do here is eat at Mickey Mantle's, hang out at the each other's houses, and the gym.

It even dissed the women of OKC.


I agree. I think much of what he said was "true", however, OKC is hopefully ( and needs to) progressing towards garnering more of the ammenties that attract and kept and young professionals. This should only serve to further validate the need for progressive initiatives like MAPS 3. We are not trying to be like other cities per se, but, improve the options available to the young, college educated demograhic that is the key to a cities vibrancy. This I believe must start with JOBS. If the city/state can begin to create good paying, knowledge based jobs, then all the things we covet like whole foods, upscale shopping, entertainment etc will follow the demographic. One other thing, Oklahoma needs to continue to embrace its Western heritage, but, also seek diversity of cultures, ideas, etc.

Matt
01-09-2010, 08:18 AM
Can you please try to keep topics in the relevant topic areas and search before opening a new thread?

http://www.okctalk.com/oklahoma-city-thunder/20435-article-espn-okc-basketball-purgatory.html

I agree with this. There's definitely a much-better discussion going on regarding this article over in the basketball section.

Popsy
01-09-2010, 09:02 AM
David Glover: THERE ARE TWO CHEFS COOKING FOR THESE PEOPLE AND A SOUND SYSTEM THAT WE PAID FOR BLASTING SNOOP?? [keels over]

Spar. Are you sure that we paid for anything associated with the practice facility referenced or are you just making up your facts as you go, again? If memory serves, the owners bought that ice rink, turned it into a practice facility and furnished it. Can you point to any news article to back up your assertion?

Spartan
01-09-2010, 02:58 PM
OMG dude. I was making a facetious point. We are subsidizing the team, no?

Popsy
01-09-2010, 03:38 PM
Spar. If that was a facetious post, you have my apology. As to subsidizing the team, I am only aware of providing them with a new practice facility. If there are other subsidies I would appreciate your detailing of them so that I can have that knowledge in the future.

circled9
01-09-2010, 09:36 PM
Certainly a failed attempt at being nice. It saddens me that people can't accept other people's way of living life. If it's not fast, famous and expensive, it's not good enough. The OKC lifestyle has obviously helped the team improve (and much faster than most would have expected). It should be celebrated much more than with back-handed compliments.

Oh yeah, I know plenty of ridiculously good-looking women here in OKC. I'm married to one too. :smile: Good Point I am married to one also.

Larry OKC
01-09-2010, 09:53 PM
Spar. If that was a facetious post, you have my apology. As to subsidizing the team, I am only aware of providing them with a new practice facility. If there are other subsidies I would appreciate your detailing of them so that I can have that knowledge in the future.

It is in the lease agreement that the City (taxpayers) are not only paying for the construction of the new practice facility, but the City is responsible for any temporary office space, practice space etc. This gets a bit fuzzy because articles plainly stated that the Thunder bought the temp practice facility. That implies they bought and paid for it with their own money and no taxpayer funds were used. But it is implied in the lease that the taxpayers are paying for it. So maybe the team got reimbursed by the City or something. I really don't know. Just as there was an ESPN article that said the Thunder paid for the Ford improvements (and we all know that was in error).

BoulderSooner
01-10-2010, 11:41 AM
OMG dude. I was making a facetious point. We are subsidizing the team, no?

no we are not

Larry OKC
01-10-2010, 03:26 PM
no we are not

What do you consider "subsidizing" then?

onthestrip
01-10-2010, 03:45 PM
What do you consider "subsidizing" then?

We let them lease the ford center and gave them a practice facility. Im pretty sure that's all the subsidizing we have done. Those chefs aren't city employees, they are paid by the thunder.

Larry OKC
01-10-2010, 08:05 PM
We let them lease the ford center and gave them a practice facility. Im pretty sure that's all the subsidizing we have done. Those chefs aren't city employees, they are paid by the thunder.

Don't know anything about the Chefs so won't speak to that. Would encourage you to go to the City's website City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://okc.gov/fordcenter/index.html) and download the Letter of Intent, Arena Use Lease Agreement, Practice Facility Lease Agreement, Arena Upgrades Agreement, and the Food & Beverage Agreement to see all of the taxpayer subsidies (from the list on the left hand side of the page). This doesn't include the $60M in tax rebate subsidies they received from the State.

jbrown84
01-10-2010, 08:09 PM
Yikes. There's nothing "downhome" about Mickey Mantle's.

Urbanized
01-11-2010, 08:18 AM
Yeah, I don't think the guy ever even stepped foot into Mickey's before writing that. Mickey's has no business affiliation with the NY location, for starters. But the greatest irony is that MM's here is a fine dining establishment, and the one in NY is pretty much a true sports bar, or about the opposite of the way he described things. Just another example of coasties making uninformed assumptions about OKC.

Edit: oops, Scoop is from Chicago. Pretty much the same though, as far as big-city-superiority-over-anything-in-"flyover country" goes.

Kerry
01-11-2010, 08:39 AM
We let them lease the ford center and gave them a practice facility. Im pretty sure that's all the subsidizing we have done. Those chefs aren't city employees, they are paid by the thunder.

How is leasing the Ford Center a subsidy? If someone lease office space are they being subsidized by the property owner?

bigjkt405
01-11-2010, 11:55 AM
I thought the article was very bad. It was a backhanded compliment.

It basically said that OKC is so boring that the only thing to do here is eat at Mickey Mantle's, hang out at the each other's houses, and the gym.

It even dissed the women of OKC.

Thats about what it is to some of the players, and their families and friends....

oneforone
01-11-2010, 12:33 PM
There is nothing I hate worse then somebody who moves to a new location and just does nothing but complain about it.

I saw this garbage all the time when I was in the military overseas. Life is what you make it, when your in a new place you should venture out and see what the locals do for fun. Enjoy the culture, make new friends, find new things to do to replace the things you miss.

Larry OKC
01-12-2010, 12:31 AM
How is leasing the Ford Center a subsidy? If someone lease office space are they being subsidized by the property owner?

Depends on the terms of the lease I guess...our lease with the Thunder could have been a lot worse but it could have been a lot better too. Instead of the $1M profit we made with the Hornets, we are looking at maybe making $150K/year with the Thunder. Our self-described "sophisticated" City leaders that negotiated the deal approached it with a self-described "break even philosophy". We didn't lose anything we were currently getting but we aren't gaining much either. The long term potential costs of the 15 to 30 year lease (based on what it has cost so far and extrapolating the numbers out) suggests a total cost nearing a billion $$$.

Kerry
01-12-2010, 06:34 AM
Depends on the terms of the lease I guess...our lease with the Thunder could have been a lot worse but it could have been a lot better too. Instead of the $1M profit we made with the Hornets, we are looking at maybe making $150K/year with the Thunder. Our self-described "sophisticated" City leaders that negotiated the deal approached it with a self-described "break even philosophy". We didn't lose anything we were currently getting but we aren't gaining much either. The long term potential costs of the 15 to 30 year lease (based on what it has cost so far and extrapolating the numbers out) suggests a total cost nearing a billion $$$.

A subsidy is when you take money from one entity that earned it, and give it to another entity that didn't earn it. Unless the Ford Center lease pays money to the Thunder that the Thunder didn't earn (which it doesn't by the way) then there is no subsidy.

Even the tax rebate agreement the Thunder has with the State isn't subsidy. Allowing an entity to keep money that it earned/generated is not a subsidy. All Thunder dollars don't belong to the city/state first, and then the Thunder only gets to have what the city/state is willing to part with. It doesn't work that way in a capitalist economy.

betts
01-12-2010, 07:50 AM
It was an unfavorable lease, as much as the arena, that lost Seattle the Sonics. They made money, but they lost their team. Last night on ESPN, Kevin Durant was the player of the day and Russell Westbrook's outstanding dunk was #4 on the top ten list. If you google Oklahoma City, you see articles about the Thunder from all around the country. The article that started this thread, although I consider it only quasi-complimentary, would not have been written but for the Thunder. The city couldn't afford the kind of publicity and air time we get by having an NBA team, so you might have to consider free advertising in that cost consideration. The city wouldn't be making anything without the Thunder, because the Ford Center wouldn't have a tenant, so anything it makes over expenses is a bonus. I pay a $1 seat tax on every Thunder ticket I've bought, which is money the city wouldn't be making as well.

Larry OKC
01-12-2010, 11:36 PM
A subsidy is when you take money from one entity that earned it, and give it to another entity that didn't earn it. Unless the Ford Center lease pays money to the Thunder that the Thunder didn't earn (which it doesn't by the way) then there is no subsidy....

Case in point: Naming Rights. The Thunder get to renegotiate the naming rights to the arena (to a building they don't own). They get the money to the naming rights to the Practice Facility (another building they don't own). This is money they didn't earn. The lease is replete with examples of "subsidy". This money rightfully belonged to the City (taxpayers) and the City decided to give it to the Thunder owners (who hadn't earned it).

Larry OKC
01-13-2010, 03:23 AM
Spar. Are you sure that we paid for anything associated with the practice facility referenced or are you just making up your facts as you go, again? If memory serves, the owners bought that ice rink, turned it into a practice facility and furnished it. Can you point to any news article to back up your assertion?


The news articles did indeed indicate that the Thunder bought/paid for the temporary practice facility (but there was an ESPN article that said the Thunder paid for the Ford improvements too). Here is the info from the actual lease (available for download from the City's website: City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://okc.gov/fordcenter/index.html))

ARENA UPGRADES AGREEMENT


3.8.2

If the License Commencement Date occurs prior to Substantial Completion of the Practice Facility as provided herein, the City will provide to the Team, at no expense to the Team, a temporary practice facility in the Oklahoma City area reasonably acceptable to the Team. Such practice facility will conform to applicable NBA Standards for practice facilities and made available at times necessary for Team use from the License Commencement Date until a date 30 days after Substantial Completion of the Practice Facility. The costs of providing such temporary facilities hereunder shall not he included in Project Costs. To the extent necessary, an amendment to this Agreement will be executed identifying any agreed revisions to the Scheduling Deadlines.


Interesting to note that even though the City paid for/owns the temporary practice facility and is paying for/will own the permanent practice facility, there is a provision in the Lease that requires the City to pay the Team $5,000 per day that the permanent facility is not complete:


3.13.2 Practice Facility Project. If the Practice Facility Project does not achieve Substantial Completion on or before the Scheduled Completion Date for the Practice Facility and such delay is not attributable to a Team Change Order(s), then, in addition to other rights of the Team as provided herein, the Authority shall remit to the Team, subject to the limitations set forth herein $5,000 for each day of such delay. The Team shall have reasonable approval rights of any liquidated damages provided for in Construction Contracts and the procedures relating to the collection and payment of the same, which Construction Contracts shall excuse payment of liquidated damages only in the context of delays resulting from Force Majeure. Liquidated Damages hereunder are not Project Costs.

dcsooner
01-13-2010, 04:41 AM
The news articles did indeed indicate that the Thunder bought/paid for the temporary practice facility (but there was an ESPN article that said the Thunder paid for the Ford improvements too). Here is the info from the actual lease (available for download from the City's website: City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://okc.gov/fordcenter/index.html))

ARENA UPGRADES AGREEMENT




Interesting to note that even though the City paid for/owns the temporary practice facility and is paying for/will own the permanent practice facility, there is a provision in the Lease that requires the City to pay the Team $5,000 per day that the permanent facility is not complete:


Larry et al,
There is no question the Team owners received a very generous lease agreement. But, for me the $350M, plus $75M paid by the owners is a huge investment in this City and is worthy of our generosity. The spin off benefit of the Thunder is almost incalculable but I dare say far exceeds anything we could have experienced had the Thunder not arrived. I say, let the owners make money, it only solidifies the long term stability of the franchise which is what I really want.

Kerry
01-13-2010, 06:54 AM
Case in point: Naming Rights. The Thunder get to renegotiate the naming rights to the arena (to a building they don't own). They get the money to the naming rights to the Practice Facility (another building they don't own). This is money they didn't earn. The lease is replete with examples of "subsidy". This money rightfully belonged to the City (taxpayers) and the City decided to give it to the Thunder owners (who hadn't earned it).

Larry, you need to read the lease agreement again. The Thunder only get money from naming rights that are above what the city was able to negotiate without the Thunder being there. So anything above the $400,000 the City got from Ford was directly attributed to the Thunder playing there, and thus, that revenue was generated by the Thunder.

The same thing goes for the practice facility. What would be the naming rights value of a facility that didn't have a primary tenant? Close to $0. Put the Thunder in it and now people want to put their name on it.

Now, if the City gave the practice facility or the Ford Center to the Thunder then you would have a point, but the Thunder are only tenants and make payments to the City. Was it a favorable lease? Sure it was but the Thunder are still only keeping what they generate (and they don't even get to keep all of that).

Larry OKC
01-13-2010, 09:59 PM
Kerry,

I understand what you are saying but if the Thunder want the rights to a building they need to pay for the building themselves (then they can do whatever they want to with the money). Not all NBA facilities are taxpayer subsidized. Most do have some level of public money but 5 NBA arenas had ZERO public money used. 8 (now 9 with the Ford) are 100% public financed with the balance pretty evenly split at various percentages.

Saying the Thunder earned that money by being a tenant is like saying if Bennet et al started buying the houses surrounding your property and building multi-million $$$ homes (thus increasing your property value as well) and then demanding that any increase in your property value had to be turned over to them. After all, if it wasn't for them your property wouldn't be worth anything more. Would you be as willing to do that?

Why does a tenant deserve any naming rights to a building they don't own? if they are going to get the naming rights to a building they don't own they can pay for the improvements to the same building (reportedly, this was the City's intention, that the eventual tenant would pay for the any improvements).

Concerning the $409,000 the Thunder is so generously allowing the City to keep...we don't get to keep it after all. That money has to be put back into a revolving fund for the Thunder/Ford. Now in theory I don't have a problem with it because that was what the naming rights money was originally intended for (to cover the maintenance and capital improvements needs of not only the Ford but other MAPS projects). The problem with that was the City was severely off in its projections as to what the maintenance (and especially the capital improvement needs) would be. After 5 years it was determined that $100M in capital improvements would be needed to bring the Ford back up to NBA standards. That works out to be $20M/year yet the naming rights only cover $400K of that or 50 times more than what they had thought.

Betts mentioned the $1 seat tax. While it is mentioned in the Lease (that the Thunder is allowing the City to charge it on all Thunder seats with the exception of the NBA mandated $10 ones), I haven't found any place where that $1 charge is earmarked. Hopefully the City is putting it back, because under the lease terms the City is responsible for upgrading the Suites and Loge Seating every 5 years. Now I don't know how much was spent on doing that this time around (again, just 5 years later) but they need to put back at least that same amount again.

Then councilman Cornett had it right when he voted against the naming rights of the Arena. He didn't have anything against Ford, but he thought we should be promoting the City with the name and not a corporation.

Were you aware that the Thunder is only paying the City $12K/game to rent the Ford (after game day expenses are covered)?

Did you know that the Thunder was prepared to pay $200K/year for the practice facility yet our "sophisticated" negotiators managed to get that cut in half?

cdbthunder
01-14-2010, 02:28 PM
I agree with Betts, you can't put a $$$ sign on the kind of pub this has brought to OKC.

Laramie
01-14-2010, 05:55 PM
When other cities become jealous of you:

This is a great sign that we are a major league city. It has happened to other cities-- Memphis (Grizzlies), Nashville (Titans-Oilers), Raleigh (Hurricanes), Salt Lake City (Jazz), Phoenix (Cardinals)...

When teams relocate to another City the hate-log stays with you for five years...

Welcome to the major leagues!

hoya
01-15-2010, 07:23 AM
Larry, I haven't read the lease. I don't intend to read the lease. I just don't care about it that much. You have, that's great. But I think the standard you are using to judge this is a bit off. This wasn't a regular business decision. The city has had a goal over the past several years to get an NBA team here. That was the goal, and every action they've taken has been towards it.

So why isn't this a lease where the city tried to leverage as much as they could for the city? Because we're not a "big league city" yet. We have yet to prove we can support a team long term. We don't know what the Thunder's operating expenses are going to be in 5 years, nor their income. So the city gave them a sweetheart deal.

Remember, Clay Bennett and his group made what many considered to be an unwise business decision. Had they stayed in Seattle, they'd have a larger fan base, a bigger market, a more valuable team, etc. They brought the Thunder here so we'd have an NBA team in Oklahoma City. So the city gave them a sweet deal because they want them in the Ford Center. Was it the best deal possible? Of course not. The team is a status symbol, not a cash cow. And I don't have a problem with that.

It's a quality of life issue, not a pure economics issue. There may be a little bit of good ol' boy-ism going on, but I think that has gone both ways. Bennett and crew didn't have to bring the team here. They did it for good ol' boy reasons. I think expecting them to pay for Ford Center renovations, etc, would be like looking a gift horse in the mouth. It would be blowing our best shot to get a professional team. So overall, I'm happy with the lease arrangement as it is.

Larry OKC
01-15-2010, 09:56 PM
How can you say you are happy with the lease arrangement if you haven't even read the lease?

Larry OKC
01-15-2010, 09:59 PM
I agree with Betts, you can't put a $$$ sign on the kind of pub this has brought to OKC.

Or the negative $$$ amount and the negative publicity the City received over the relocation. That will fade in time but there are still people ticked that the Dodgers left Brooklyn. LOL

betts
01-15-2010, 10:16 PM
There are senior citizens in New York that are still ticked that the Dodgers left Brooklyn. Ask the average man on the street and he won't even know they ever played in New York. The only negative press we're still getting about the relocation is in Seattle and from Bill Simmons. We'll see how much they say about the Sonics at the All Star game, when Kevin plays.

Seriously, google Oklahoma City and go to News. Don't add Thunder to your search. Four out of the ten news stories are about the Thunder, with 879 related stories on the Thunder and 163 on every other Oklahoma City topic. On many days it's 8 out of the ten. Watch Sports Center tonight and every night between now and April and tell me how many nights they talk about the Thunder. Every night we get mentioned is one night nothing would have been said about Oklahoma City two years ago. We've been selected as the game of the week on NBA TV four times this year. Those games include shots of Oklahoma City at every break. Again, that kind of advertising, if we had to pay for it, would cost Oklahoma City more than they could ever hope to make on naming rights.

How much money does the city make from its parks, the Civic Center, the Brick, the Art Museum, the downtown library, the Bricktown Canal? I suspect each one of them costs the city money. The Thunder, in my opinion, are every bit as much as asset to the city as any of the above. A different kind of asset, and one that cannot stand alone, just like all the others. As a whole, however, all of them make this a much better place in which to live.

hoya
01-15-2010, 11:35 PM
How can you say you are happy with the lease arrangement if you haven't even read the lease?

Because I'm not looking for the city to make a lot of money on it. Yes, the city probably could have gotten more cash from the deal, but the fact that they didn't doesn't bother me. Remember, the deal they had with the Hornets was risky. If the team didn't make money, the city agreed to pay the team quite a bit. Fortunately, fans showed up in droves and so the city made more than they ever thought they would.

I'm okay with a little bit of payback to Bennett's group for bringing the team here. Understand that the whole team-purchasing thing was a money loser for them. This wasn't a traditional team move. This was done specifically so that OKC could get a team, and so the city was more accommodating than they had to be.

Is the Ford Center a subsidy? I guess you could call it that. However, the decision was made to build it back with the first MAPS program. At that time, the city as a whole decided to subsidize some potential future team. This was the plan, and it was voted on back in 1993. If someone is only now realizing that some private citizen might make money off of it, well, I don't know what to tell you. Do you really expect Clay Bennett and crew to purchase a team, move it to a smaller market (causing a decrease in team value), and then buy the arena as well? I don't.

Larry OKC
01-16-2010, 12:34 AM
Because I'm not looking for the city to make a lot of money on it.
But you should, that is part of being "Big League"...the ability to bring in the Big League Bucks


I'm okay with a little bit of payback to Bennett's group for bringing the team here.

A little payback? This "payback" is amounting to $100s of millions (more than it cost to buy the team). What would you consider to be excessive and unacceptable?


Understand that the whole team-purchasing thing was a money loser for them.
Sorry but that just isn't the case. While it is true that they overpaid for the team by about $100M, this was a business investment. No guarantee of course, but most likely they will get every penny of their investment back when they eventually decide to sell the team. Just as EVERY previous Sonics owner had done over it's 40+ year history. Even Schultz with his multi-million $$$ losses, got back those, the initial cost of the team with a few million to spare. Money loser? Hardly. They went from multi-million $$$ losses in Seattle directly to multi-million $$$ profit.


Do you really expect Clay Bennett and crew to purchase a team, move it to a smaller market (causing a decrease in team value), and then buy the arena as well? I don't.
Yep, absolutely! As it is a privately owned, intended for-profit business. Hardly anyone with the NBA thought it was a bad move since the relocation was overwhelmingly approved.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame Bennett for trying to get taxpayer $$$ and probably he even thinks he is entitled to it as every NBA franchise he has been connected with (Spurs/Hornets/Sonics) have all had heavy public financing of their arenas.

While most NBA arenas have some level of public financing, according to the NBA database that used to be available over at NewsOK.com, they range from 5 arenas with Zero% public financing to 8 with 100%. They are pretty evenly split with those at 50% and above, and those at 50% and below. If memory serves, every 10% range was included. While it would have been impossible for OKC to be in the 0% group (given the original cost of the building) would much rather been in the roughly 50% group than the 100% club. Unfortunately now the precedent has been set not only for the Thunder but any other pro-sports team that might come here. They are going to expect the same treatment. OKC was in the best possible negotiating position it could be in and we blew it. And we are going to be paying for it for the next 15 to 30 years.

Larry OKC
01-16-2010, 12:49 AM
Again, that kind of advertising, if we had to pay for it, would cost Oklahoma City more than they could ever hope to make on naming rights.

But the point is we had and could have kept the naming rights money too (it IS a City owned building).


How much money does the city make from its parks, the Civic Center, the Brick, the Art Museum, the downtown library, the Bricktown Canal? I suspect each one of them costs the city money. The Thunder, in my opinion, are every bit as much as asset to the city as any of the above. A different kind of asset, and one that cannot stand alone, just like all the others. As a whole, however, all of them make this a much better place in which to live.

Why can't the Thunder stand alone? Didn't they make multi-millions in profit last year? Don't lose money on the arena, as every year the Ford has turned an operational profit. Now Bennett is on record as thinking arenas can't be run at a profit so don't blame him for not wanting to own one. But if he doesn't want to own the business and the rightful costs associated with running that business, he shouldn't be in that business.

If memory serves, according to Steve, the Canal has turned a profit for the City every year but one.

I know you like to lump all of this together under the same banner as we have discussed this before. There are certain things government should be paying for and/or subsidizing and some things it shouldn't. This is one reason why the state constitution needs to be followed and MAPS items needed to be listed as separate propositions. One of the things it shouldn't be doing is paying for the private, for-profit pro sports entertainment. Period.

ljbab728
01-16-2010, 01:02 AM
[QUOTE=Larry OKC;292217]But the point is we had and could have kept the naming rights money too (it IS a City owned building).



If memory serves, according to Steve, the Canal has turned a profit for the City every year but one.

I think what you mean is that the boats in the canal have turned a profit for the city. The canal has never and probably never will turn a profit.

Larry OKC
01-16-2010, 04:38 AM
yes, I meant an operational profit...sorry

Rover
01-17-2010, 09:08 AM
Why is it that these threads keep getting hijacked by the same two or three people who are always negative about anything progressive the city or any government does.

There is always a viable public/private partner relationship that can exist to the benefit of both. In business we are always trying to achieve win/win opportunities in deals and those who only see a deal if it is just a win for them seldom are invited to participate in significant deals and rarely do they last.

The NBA in OKC is a highly desirable venture for the city and the public who benefits by the increased profile and continuous exposure the city gets. My job takes me to all parts of the country every week and I can tell you the good visibility of OKC has never been better and the Thunder is a nice big part. OKC is now considered for investments and re-locations and for job opportunities that it wasn't before. The idea that somehow OKC took advantage of the citizens to benefit a few fat cats is just myopic paranoia from people who would be comfortable going back in time 100 years and to keep this city in basic poverty levels. No taxes, no services but no real income and no competitiveness.

OKC is enjoying unprecedented success and it is not accidental. Hats off to leadership - both public and private - who has helped make it possible for the next generations to enjoy opportunities in a vibrant growing city with lots of opportunities.

rcjunkie
01-17-2010, 10:17 AM
Why is it that these threads keep getting hijacked by the same two or three people who are always negative about anything progressive the city or any government does.

There is always a viable public/private partner relationship that can exist to the benefit of both. In business we are always trying to achieve win/win opportunities in deals and those who only see a deal if it is just a win for them seldom are invited to participate in significant deals and rarely do they last.

The NBA in OKC is a highly desirable venture for the city and the public who benefits by the increased profile and continuous exposure the city gets. My job takes me to all parts of the country every week and I can tell you the good visibility of OKC has never been better and the Thunder is a nice big part. OKC is now considered for investments and re-locations and for job opportunities that it wasn't before. The idea that somehow OKC took advantage of the citizens to benefit a few fat cats is just myopic paranoia from people who would be comfortable going back in time 100 years and to keep this city in basic poverty levels. No taxes, no services but no real income and no competitiveness.

OKC is enjoying unprecedented success and it is not accidental. Hats off to leadership - both public and private - who has helped make it possible for the next generations to enjoy opportunities in a vibrant growing city with lots of opportunities.

As my 15 year old son would say "that's how they roll", translated means some are so anti-city, anti-government, that nothing would please them. They appear to be so unhappy with their lives, they try to drag everything around down to their unhappy level.

Larry OKC
01-17-2010, 01:02 PM
Why is it that these threads keep getting hijacked by the same two or three people who are always negative about anything progressive the city or any government does....

Presume you are referring to me but I have been responding to other peoples posts and sharing info they may have forgotten or not even known about. I didn't start the discussion (it was Spartan when he asked: "We are subsidizing the team, no?") and Popsy replied that he thought the only subsidy the team received was the Practice Facility. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Not anti-government or even anti-taxes as there are some things Government and Taxes should be used for. IMO it is not any city's responsibility to subsidize a broken business model. If a private, intended for-profit business insists they can't make a profit without taxpayer funding from the beginning and require continued taxpayer support the entire time they are there, maybe they should cease to exist. If Cheasepeak or Devon came to the City and said we need you to pay for our sprawling campus or new tower and you have to keep upgrading it every five years or so would you call that being "progressive"? Being pro-business is one thing but this crosses the line.

I am not anti-NBA or anti-sports either. But owners of pro-teams can certainly afford to pay their own way. And if they insist on taxpayer support, the "silent investors" need to get a direct financial windfall as well. you know, an actual ownership stake in the team or at least a profit sharing arrangement like we had with the Hornets? Oh, and didn't we get the same positive press etc when we had that arrangement as now when we don't?
Unfortunately, our self-described "sophisticated" City negotiators failed in that regard. IMO

dcsooner
01-17-2010, 02:49 PM
Why is it that these threads keep getting hijacked by the same two or three people who are always negative about anything progressive the city or any government does.

There is always a viable public/private partner relationship that can exist to the benefit of both. In business we are always trying to achieve win/win opportunities in deals and those who only see a deal if it is just a win for them seldom are invited to participate in significant deals and rarely do they last.

The NBA in OKC is a highly desirable venture for the city and the public who benefits by the increased profile and continuous exposure the city gets. My job takes me to all parts of the country every week and I can tell you the good visibility of OKC has never been better and the Thunder is a nice big part. OKC is now considered for investments and re-locations and for job opportunities that it wasn't before. The idea that somehow OKC took advantage of the citizens to benefit a few fat cats is just myopic paranoia from people who would be comfortable going back in time 100 years and to keep this city in basic poverty levels. No taxes, no services but no real income and no competitiveness.

OKC is enjoying unprecedented success and it is not accidental. Hats off to leadership - both public and private - who has helped make it possible for the next generations to enjoy opportunities in a vibrant growing city with lots of opportunities.

Well Said! Completely Agree!! Go Thunder