Thank you bludogok, I'm glad someone recalled that we had an AFL team in the city; that's not to say that the second time around a group didn't reject bringing the AFL back to the city.

I recalled. just don't see the relevance. Spokane has a successful AFL franchise now, does that mean they should consider getting an NFL team as well??? If you are trying to prove the viability of an NFL team in OKC, don't use a league that ended up folding because of bad management and over expanding, and then was replaced by their minor league... In fact, OKC getting an AFL team along with a bunch of other cities that didn't need one, is one of the reasons that league folded, and then the AF2 became the current AFL.

I recalled. just don't see the relevance. Spokane has a successful AFL franchise now, does that mean they should consider getting an NFL team as well??? If you are trying to prove the viability of an NFL team in OKC, don't use a league that ended up folding because of bad management and over expanding, and then was replaced by their minor league... In fact, OKC getting an AFL team along with a bunch of other cities that didn't need one, is one of the reasons that league folded, and then the AF2 became the current AFL.


No, you need not read anthing into what I said. I was acknowledging that you recalled something. Some people don't know the history of sports in OKC; yet, they come on here half-cocked.

Wasn't trying compare the AFL to the NFL or to pull you over to my angle. Just responding to a commit made by a poster; obviously, my opinions aren't going to influence you anymore than yours are going to influence me. Opinions are for whatever they are worth--when its all said and done; what do they really matter.

We all learn from reading the various postings on this forum; I don't always agree or disagree with what is said on this forum.

Your opinions have merit and I respect what you have to say...

Here are 7 quick reasons why this is a pipe dream:

1. Los Angeles does not have a NFL team.
2. A metro needs a minimum of 1 million people per sports team. OKC needs 700,000 more residents to meet this general rule.
3. OKC has among the lowest per capita incomes (i.e., spending money) of major cities, thus meaning it probably needs more than the 1 million people rule.
4. Corporate sponsorship is already spread thin.
5. OU & OSU football are great for those universities. How much would a NFL team diminish that?
6. NFL stadiums are incredibly expensive and keeping the Thunder in a nice arena will provide enough cost for taxpayers.
7. There are far better ways for taxpayers to spend their money (e.g., streetcar expansion) to invest in this city.

This topic should be revisited in 30-50 years though.

nm

Here are 7 quick reasons why this is a pipe dream:

1. Los Angeles does not have a NFL team.
2. A metro needs a minimum of 1 million people per sports team. OKC needs 700,000 more residents to meet this general rule.
3. OKC has among the lowest per capita incomes (i.e., spending money) of major cities, thus meaning it probably needs more than the 1 million people rule.
4. Corporate sponsorship is already spread thin.
5. OU & OSU football are great for those universities. How much would a NFL team diminish that?
6. NFL stadiums are incredibly expensive and keeping the Thunder in a nice arena will provide enough cost for taxpayers.
7. There are far better ways for taxpayers to spend their money (e.g., streetcar expansion) to invest in this city.

This topic should be revisited in 30-50 years though.

What makes New Orleans the exception to the rule?

New Orleans had a team for many years before the business of the NFL today came into being. That team would more than likely be in San Antonio if the NFL hadn't of forced Benson to move the team back after the temporary stay in San Antonio.

If New Orleans were going for a new expansion or relocated team and had no previous NFL history (like OKC does not) they would have a very hard time attracting a team in the current environment. The NFL is a much different game business wise than it was when most of the teams were located in the 70's and prior years.

NFL in Oklahoma City will never happen unless the population in Oklahoma or Tulsa surrounding areas get to about 1.5 to 2 million people.

New Orleans had a team for many years before the business of the NFL today came into being. That team would more than likely be in San Antonio if the NFL hadn't of forced Benson to move the team back after the temporary stay in San Antonio.

If New Orleans were going for a new expansion or relocated team and had no previous NFL history (like OKC does not) they would have a very hard time attracting a team in the current environment. The NFL is a much different game business wise than it was when most of the teams were located in the 70's and prior years.

Right, however New Orleans has both NFL and NBA.

Right, however New Orleans has both NFL and NBA.

There attendance especially the Hornets/Pelicans was not great even pre-Katrina, had it not been for that there is a decent chance that they would be playing basketball in San Jose or another city when the lease was up a couple years ago.

Right, however New Orleans has both NFL and NBA.
...and neither would be there still if the commissioners of the leagues hadn't overridden the team ownership in the name of PR. Neither league thought it "looked good to abandon New Orleans" because of Katrina. If Benson and Shinn had their way the Saints would be in San Antonio and the Hornets would be in OKC. There was a "special case" made for New Orleans, the only thing that it has going for it in regards to population is the fact that it is a tourist city.

Other than Atlanta, which has a relatively affluent metro population of about 5 million, what other major metro area strongly supports both NFL and major college football? Not Houston, not Dallas, not Denver, LA or San Francisco (though SF/OAK comes close at times. OKCs support of the Thunder has cost support for OU basketball. NFL would do the same for both OU and OSU football.

Other than Atlanta, which has a relatively affluent metro population of about 5 million, what other major metro area strongly supports both NFL and major college football? Not Houston, not Dallas, not Denver, LA or San Francisco (though SF/OAK comes close at times. OKCs support of the Thunder has cost support for OU basketball. NFL would do the same for both OU and OSU football.

The support of OU's men's basketball generally tracked with the team performance. They went from a contender in the NCAA tournament to practically win less in the Big 12 as the Thunder arrived, a drop off in attendance for a sport that has never been as consistently supported as football should not be unexpected. Also, I do not think that donations have dropped nearly as much as the sales of the cheap seats.

I agree. OU has been bad (until last season) for the first stretch in probably 30 years. OU's basketball fans have never been great, but attendance increased last season. If the team returns to where it was (a top 20 team annually) then I would bet they'll have 80-90% of what they used to get.

Football seems like another monster though. I really like the strong college presence now. I'd hate to see them lose support.

I agree. OU has been bad (until last season) for the first stretch in probably 30 years. OU's basketball fans have never been great, but attendance increased last season. If the team returns to where it was (a top 20 team annually) then I would bet they'll have 80-90% of what they used to get.

Football seems like another monster though. I really like the strong college presence now. I'd hate to see them lose support.

and it wasn't long ago that OU basketball was a ticket sell out every game ..

For those that want the NFL, what is your reasoning for it? Is it because you like NFL football and want a local team to root for, you think it will raise OKCs national/international profile (or even in the profile in your own mind), both, or some other reason?

and it wasn't long ago that OU basketball was a ticket sell out every game ..

When was that? I think you're romanticizing a little bit. I went to most games since 2000 until the last couple years and while fan support was better, there was never a time that they were selling out evey game.

from 1998-1999 until around 2005 .. OU season tickets were sold out

don't confuse that with me saying bodies were in the stands .. for most game clearly they were not but the tickets were sold

"Smart cities plan for the future."--Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett.

The big question is: Do we want to take risks?

MAPS I was our first big risk. It paid off.

MAPS II (...for Kids) It paid off with giving students a better physical learning environment.

MAPS FOR HOOPS Upgraded the Indoor Sports Arena (a key to obtaining an NBA franchise).

MAPS III Introduction of a taste of rail transit, downtown central park, convention center and other projects. In process...

MAPS IV ? (2017) Will we continue the momentum...

The uniqueness about Oklahoma City's experience in extending the sales tax (no new taxes) which allowed for building new structures and renovation of structures needing attention beyond bandages; our city generated its own stimulus to infuse private development.

It is unfortunate that some posters can't look toward the future. I'm talking about 2017 and 2020 and some critics can't see past the current year.

Let hope Mayor Mick Cornett continues on because there are some on the council (with good intentions) who wants to maintain the status-quo and expire the sales tax; this could cause progress to become stagnant and risk jeopardizing the progress OKC has made since the original MAPS I. A city on the verge? Oklahoma City needs to continue its momentum into the future.

MAPS IV ? (2017) Will be continue the momentum...

The uniqueness about Oklahoma City experience in extending the sales tax (no new taxes) which allows for building new structures and renovations of structures needing attention beyond bandages; our city generated its own stimulus to infuse private development.

It is unfortunate that some posters can't look toward the future. I'm talking about 2017 and 2020 and some critics can't see past the current year.


I am right there will you thinking about 2017 and 2020, and even 2025 and 2030. Maps IV should be massive expansion of streetcar, along with major changes to the bus system, and perhaps the OKC kick-in part of what would be a Regional transit authority (whether that be a light rail, or commuter rail). Maps IV should also be a continued investment and development of the C2S area and along the river. Maps IV should take us from a city with 3 arenas that have open dates to 2 arenas that are almost always being used (i think this is done by demolition of the Cox Center and a complete rebuild of the State Fair Arena to be the cities second and smaller arena venue). Expansion of sidewalks and bike lanes should be in Maps IV. Maps IV should make our city a destination that people are able to travel to for all of those conventions, that the OKC Chamber thinks will be in our new CC, and get around our fair city without the need of renting a car or getting a Taxi.

Maps IV should be tag lined as Walkable Maps, or Maps for a Walkable OKC. And sure there will be a few projects that are thrown in that are not related to that goal, but i'm okay with that. Maps IV should have the goal of making it easier to spend time and money in OKC rather than the suburbs, so that the amount of money generated for Maps is greatly increased.

At least that is my vision. and it does not include an NFL stadium

I am right there will you thinking about 2017 and 2020, and even 2025 and 2030. Maps IV should be massive expansion of streetcar, along with major changes to the bus system, and perhaps the OKC kick-in part of what would be a Regional transit authority (whether that be a light rail, or commuter rail). Maps IV should also be a continued investment and development of the C2S area and along the river. Maps IV should take us from a city with 3 arenas that have open dates to 2 arenas that are almost always being used (i think this is done by demolition of the Cox Center and a complete rebuild of the State Fair Arena to be the cities second and smaller arena venue). Expansion of sidewalks and bike lanes should be in Maps IV. Maps IV should make our city a destination that people are able to travel to for all of those conventions, that the OKC Chamber thinks will be in our new CC, and get around our fair city without the need of renting a car or getting a Taxi.

Maps IV should be tag lined as Walkable Maps, or Maps for a Walkable OKC. And sure there will be a few projects that are thrown in that are not related to that goal, but i'm okay with that. Maps IV should have the goal of making it easier to spend time and money in OKC rather than the suburbs, so that the amount of money generated for Maps is greatly increased.

At least that is my vision. and it does not include an NFL stadium

Agree 100%. Does not have to include an NFL stadium...

Is OKC going to be a Top 30 television market by then? Probably not and as most other cities grow they are not going to move up 15 spots in 4-10 years and as the cities grow the "unwritten requirements" to get an NFL relocation or expansion team will increase as well. There will be a team in LA and possibly two and one in London before OKC has a shot at one. From a fan attendance perspective I think it could be a success but that is not what brings money to the table of the owners and the league. That is just being realistic as the NFL is a completely different world than any other sports league in the country. The effort would be better put towards a MLS stadium and team.

Is OKC going to be a Top 30 television market by then? Probably not and as most other cities grow they are not going to move up 15 spots in 4-10 years and as the cities grow the "unwritten requirements" to get an NFL relocation or expansion team will increase as well. There will be a team in LA and possibly two and one in London before OKC has a shot at one. From a fan attendance perspective I think it could be a success but that is not what brings money to the table of the owners and the league. That is just being realistic as the NFL is a completely different world than any other sports league in the country. The effort would be better put towards a MLS stadium and team.

Don't be surprised in the team in London is the Jaguars. We are already losing one home game a year for the next 5 years to London under the guise that it will be good for Jacksonville. Someone still needs to explain to me how having your team play home games in another city is supposed to help. Jacksonville thought having a team would bring all this growth to the area but it turns out that growth happens most when your team plays in a larger city somewhere else. The Jags owner just bought Fulham Football Club of the English Premier League, which just happens to play home games on the banks of the Thames in southwest London. To quote the Church Lady - how convenient.

Don't be surprised in the team in London is the Jaguars. We are already losing one home game a year for the next 5 years to London under the guise that it will be good for Jacksonville. Someone still needs to explain to me how having your team play home games in another city is supposed to help. Jacksonville thought having a team would bring all this growth to the area but it turns out that growth happens most when your team plays in a larger city somewhere else. The Jags owner just bought Fulham Football Club of the English Premier League, which just happens to play home games on the banks of the Thames in southwest London. To quote the Church Lady - how convenient.

The Jags are one of the poster children for bad franchise expansion. Seems as though Khan (owner) has had at best a contentious relationship with the league AND the city, and the city has managed to ignore the team in droves. Agree that it looks like the Jags are a prime candidate to be the first NFL foray into England, which I personally think is a monumental mistake for the league, but that's a discussion for a different sports thread.

It is unfortunate that some posters can't look toward the future. I'm talking about 2017 and 2020 and some critics can't see past the current year.

We are looking toward the future. We're looking toward what happens when the Thunder is rebuilding or has a bad season or two. We supported them when they were bad a few years ago because OKC finally had a pro team that it could call its very own. Then we got good and it's fairly easy to support a good team. I think we should see how things turn out for the Thunder and can we support them in the long term. If suport goes south for them in the next 10 or 15 years, we have a real chance of losing them to another city. Let's not make our tenure as a big league city brief.

So as far as the NFL is concerned, I'm afraid we'd be biting off more than we can chew. Right now we don't have the population to support to pro franchises and I doubt we'll have that population by 2020. Maybe we will though. But right now, we're a ways off. Let's support what we do have.

We are looking toward the future. We're looking toward what happens when the Thunder is rebuilding or has a bad season or two. We supported them when they were bad a few years ago because OKC finally had a pro team that it could call its very own. Then we got good and it's fairly easy to support a good team. I think we should see how things turn out for the Thunder and can we support them in the long term. If suport goes south for them in the next 10 or 15 years, we have a real chance of losing them to another city. Let's not make our tenure as a big league city brief.

So as far as the NFL is concerned, I'm afraid we'd be biting off more than we can chew. Right now we don't have the population to support to pro franchises and I doubt we'll have that population by 2020. Maybe we will though. But right now, we're a ways off. Let's support what we do have.

Have to agree! Based on our current rate of growth; we won't exceed two million.

Interesting that you brought this up. Salt Lake City has been in the league far longer than OKC--they have established their base. They are not averaging the 19,911 they use to average when they were competitive and had a winning record; however, they dropped to 18,900 (still better than OKC). They do have an MLS soccer franchise (Real Salt Lake) which is in its initial years of getting established. The team is doing quite well, averaging 19,000-plus.

Agree, we definitely don't want to lose the Thunder chasing a bigger fish we can hold. 2017-2020 is sometime away; let's see what develops...

The Jags are one of the poster children for bad franchise expansion. Seems as though Khan (owner) has had at best a contentious relationship with the league AND the city, and the city has managed to ignore the team in droves. Agree that it looks like the Jags are a prime candidate to be the first NFL foray into England, which I personally think is a monumental mistake for the league, but that's a discussion for a different sports thread.
Khan just bought the team at the end of 2011, I think Wayne Weaver had a contentious relationship with Jacksonville well before that.

I think the Jags are the most likely in London and the Rams/Kronke a distant second. I also think Buffalo will eventually be in Toronto full time and Mexico City is a dark house of international relocation/expansion.

Khan (the new owner) seems to be a great owner to most people but he seems just a little shifty to me. For example, he recently was the money man behind the purchase of several buildings and prime real estate in downtown Jax that the City has been trying to get redeveloped for a long time. He says he wants to do great things for the property and make the city proud - but so far he hasn't disclosed any plans. Then he comes and asks the City to spend over $60 million fixing up EverBank Field for him. It makes me wonder if he only bought the land and building as a way to grease the wheels on the stadium improvements and will now hold the city hostage on doing his redevelopments unless the improvements are made. Meanwhile, he has agreed to move 5 homes games to London because it will be good for Jacksonville.

bills lease runs until 2023 with the only reasonable buy out in 2020 .. buffalo and the team spending 120 mil renovating the stadium



jags lease pretty much iron clad until 2030

jags lease pretty much iron clad until 2030

It isn't iron clad - it has a buyout clause. A team in London would be way more valuable than the buyout clause. Also, the Sonics had an iron-clad lease as well.

http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-30/story/jaguars-lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030


If the Jacksonville Jaguars’ prospective new owner wants to move the team to a new city before 2030, he’d have to pay the city millions of dollars to get out of its lease for EverBank Field.

The team could avoid paying a lot of those penalties — which could total more than $100 million — if it lost money one year and was below the NFL’s revenue average the following two years.

The team has not publicly disclosed its revenue, but Jacksonville is one of the smallest and least profitable National Football League markets, so the latter condition is likely already the case.

...

If the team can show it has lost money for a year and had below-average revenue the following two years, though, that payout gets cut by about 40 percent.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-30/story/jaguars-lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030#ixzz2ZJplE1mI

no nfl team is "losing" money ..

For those that want the NFL, what is your reasoning for it? Is it because you like NFL football and want a local team to root for, you think it will raise OKCs national/international profile (or even in the profile in your own mind), both, or some other reason?

My mind is buffering (LOL!)...

Seriously, a thought-provoking question: Answer: A little of all of the above.

We are not currently ready for the NFL; nor would our small TV market make an impact on the NFL. The period of 2017-20 will help to address many of these questions.

Many large cities like Los Angeles, San Antonio and Portland would be more attractive to the NFL than OKC.

Nashville was a 'can do' city and they aggessively brought the NFL and the NHL in without its arch-rival city Memphis.

How long with that community support both the NHL & the NFL?

The NFL requires 3 million people in a 150-mile radius.

1. Will the NFL ever return to Los Angeles? Has its absence hurt NFL viewership media households?

2. Is San Antonio's Alamo Dome nearing obsolescence? Will they rebuild or renovate. Is it clear that the NFL doesn't want three NFL franchises in Texas?

3. Will Portland ever build an NFL stadium? Does Portland want the NFL?

4. Does the NFL want to go global?

Please: This should generate some discussion...

what the nfl wants is not really relevant ... all we need is a multi billionaire that buys a team and wants to move it to okc

no nfl team is "losing" money ..

Funny you mention that - because from 2002 to 2004 (the only years that were under review) - the Jags did lose money.


During contentious negotiations with the city over advertising revenue six years ago, Weaver said the team had lost money in two years between 2002 and 2004.

A city consultant who reviewed the team’s books at the time confirmed that the team did end some years in the red, although a nondisclosure agreement prohibited him from providing details.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: Jaguars' lease makes it costly to leave Jacksonville before 2030 | jacksonville.com (http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-30/story/jaguars-lease-makes-it-costly-leave-jacksonville-2030#ixzz2ZKR8kWed)

Anyhow, even if the Jags had to pay the full amount (around $100 million), they would make that back the first year in London. In fact, they would blow that out of the water just in Luxury Suite sales. Can anyone imagine how much a luxury suite in London would go for, especially after converting pounds to dollars. It is a lot more than a luxury suite in Jacksonville goes for.

Funny you mention that - because from 2002 to 2004 (the only years that were under review) - the Jags did lose money.



Anyhow, even if the Jags had to pay the full amount (around $100 million), they would make that back the first year in London. In fact, they would blow that out of the water just in Luxury Suite sales. Can anyone imagine how much a luxury suite in London would go for, especially after converting pounds to dollars. It is a lot more than a luxury suite in Jacksonville goes for.

depends what the lease terms would be in london .. with the already owned stadium ..

depends what the lease terms would be in london .. with the already owned stadium ..

Tru Dat. Of course, with his own soccer team in London and a few billion at his disposal he might choose to build his own stadium. I don't know if the UK is into publicly funding sporting venues like the US is.

what the nfl wants is not really relevant ... all we need is a multi billionaire that buys a team and wants to move it to okc

The owners approve team sales, so what the NFL wants is still relevant. Even if a multi-billionaire popped into existence, bought a team, and wanted to move it to OKC against what the NFL wanted, an unlikely prospect to begin with, Al Davis is pretty good proof that that doesn't work out in the long run. He had to move back to Oakland not that long after strongarming his team to LA.

The owners approve team sales, so what the NFL wants is still relevant. Even if a multi-billionaire popped into existence, bought a team, and wanted to move it to OKC against what the NFL wanted, an unlikely prospect to begin with, Al Davis is pretty good proof that that doesn't work out in the long run. He had to move back to Oakland not that long after strongarming his team to LA.

Ownership groups are relevant in the NFL. That's why Jacksonville & Charlotte ended up with expansion franchises. They beat St. Louis and several other markets during the year they were admitted to the league.

The NFL looks at these three items:

1. Ownership
2. Market (Population)
3. Market (TV households)

The ownership group can make the difference. Market (Population) has to meet or exceed minimum. They prefer markets where there are a lot to TV households.

In the four major leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) expansion and/or relocation franchises have to pay a pretty hefty fee and the existing owners all share that revenue.

Places like London, Paris & Madrid are all attractive and would be a feather in any leagues' cap--travel & time zones would be the biggest concerns; especially with TV. The NFL had a division over in that area and it didn't work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_League_of_American_Football


NBA was suppose to go global back in the late 90s; that's why Nashville pursued the NHL instead of the NBA.

The NFL didn't have an "NFL Division" in Europe, they had a minor league setup over there and at first played during the spring/summer. They dropped the American teams from the World League of American Football and called it NFL Europe, it was still minor league football and started after the Superbowl. It was one of the leagues that Kurt Warner played in before landing with the Rams. That would be like the International league placing some baseball teams in Europe, it would not have the draw of the MLB of the NBA DL placing teams over there, minor leagues aren't going to get the same attention as the top level league.

As far as travel, a London team would have to be in an East division, Miami-Seattle (the shortest flight is 2,724 miles) or San Diego-Boston (2,588 miles) is pretty long, Boston-London is 3,281 miles, NYC-London is 3,466 miles, so roughly an hour longer than a domestic cross country flight. London is also 5 hours ahead of Eastern Time, so there is not that much difference than an east coast/west coast time difference. When they do have London games they start at 1:00 PM eastern or 6:00 PM London time. The only issue would be the late time slot games but then many teams don't play many of those. You are also talking about a maximum of 10 games (2 pre-season/8 regular season) plus any playoff games.

The NFL didn't have an "NFL Division" in Europe, they had a minor league setup over there and at first played during the spring/summer. They dropped the American teams from the World League of American Football and called it NFL Europe, it was still minor league football and started after the Superbowl. It was one of the leagues that Kurt Warner played in before landing with the Rams. That would be like the International league placing some baseball teams in Europe, it would not have the draw of the MLB of the NBA DL placing teams over there, minor leagues aren't going to get the same attention as the top level league.

As far as travel, a London team would have to be in an East division, Miami-Seattle (the shortest flight is 2,724 miles) or San Diego-Boston (2,588 miles) is pretty long, Boston-London is 3,281 miles, NYC-London is 3,466 miles, so roughly an hour longer than a domestic cross country flight. London is also 5 hours ahead of Eastern Time, so there is not that much difference than an east coast/west coast time difference. When they do have London games they start at 1:00 PM eastern or 6:00 PM London time. The only issue would be the late time slot games but then many teams don't play many of those. You are also talking about a maximum of 10 games (2 pre-season/8 regular season) plus any playoff games.

My Bad! Thanks for your clarification on the NFL 'division' vs. 'minor league'; believe me there is a difference.

I think 2020 is too early for us to have any realistic shot at the NFL. We would need to be in the 2025-2030 range. By that point the Thunder would be very well established and nobody would blink that we were pursuing a second pro team.

I think 2020 is too early for us to have any realistic shot at the NFL. We would need to be in the 2025-2030 range. By that point the Thunder would be very well established and nobody would blink that we were pursuing a second pro team.

Another concern we are going to have to address around 2017-2020:

1. The Cox Convention Center Arena (Old Myriad) will have to be gutted and that space will become exhibition halls.

2. The Chesapeake Energy Arena will enter stage 1 of becoming obsolete about this time--we will be thinking about downsizing it.

3. A new arena is going to cost at least $500-$600 million by then; where will we build it?

The Thunder are here to stay for now. Don't be surprised if cities like Seattle, Louisville, Albuquerque, Norfolk-Virginia Beach, Richmond and Las Vegas begin aggressively seeking to acquire an NBA franchise by expansion or relocation.

We want to be well ahead and established by then with plans for keeping the Thunder here.

Who will be in trouble by then:

Sacramento (if no new arena is available).

Atlanta
Detroit
Indianapolis
Memphis
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New Orleans
Salt Lake City
San Francisco-Oakland
(if attendance isn't strong in any of the above and the lease on these arenas aren't secured.)

Cities like Norfolk-Virginia Beach (largest metro area without any professional sports) and others have looked at what having an NBA franchise has done for some of these cities and they want in on the action. The Thunder's success in Oklahoma City is the current 'poster city' for this model.

Note: These aggressive cities could also be used as pawns...

Another concern we are going to have to address around 2017-2020:

1. The Cox Convention Center Arena (Old Myriad) will have to be gutted and that space will become exhibition halls.

2. The Chesapeake Energy Arena will enter stage 1 of becoming obsolete about this time--we will be thinking about downsizing it.

3. A new arena is going to cost at least $500-$600 million by then; where will we build it?

1) has there been any serious talk about converting the arena to exhibition halls, most everything I have heard is leveling the entire building eventually. Then returning that to to the grid, with the emphasis on attracting some sort of vertical development.

2) this may be overly optimistic thinking but the reasons that made renovations bad in the last few decades for basketball were arenas had previously been expanding to include more seats or more options at the area to promote spending money. Well at this point basketball arenas capacities have pretty much peaked since any new seats are getting pretty low quality, so unless new the space for retail & dining for similar sized audiences outside the arena continues upward (which really we could build out if necessary), then the cycle for completely replacing may not be as short as the last set of NBA arenas was.

1) has there been any serious talk about converting the arena to exhibition halls, most everything I have heard is leveling the entire building eventually. Then returning that to to the grid, with the emphasis on attracting some sort of vertical development.



2) this may be overly optimistic thinking but the reasons that made renovations bad in the last few decades for basketball were arenas had previously been expanding to include more seats or more options at the area to promote spending money. Well at this point basketball arenas capacities have pretty much peaked since any new seats are getting pretty low quality, so unless new the space for retail & dining for similar sized audiences outside the arena continues upward (which really we could build out if necessary), then the cycle for completely replacing may not be as short as the last set of NBA arenas was.

1. Good observation! Arenas have peaked; more speciality seating (priced); note those in the Peake at one end. Our Arena's capacity went from 19,300 to 18,203 in just one season. Our original blueprints for the Indoor Sports Arena
was to seat 19,599 for basektball and around 17,979 for hockey.

When the 1993 MAPS I passed; if I recall they wanted to downsized the Great Arena (inside old Myriad) to accommodate 7,300 and put an exhibition hall below or above. Anyone who can recall this and the plans--please chime in.


It was delayed. About $50 million of the original MAPS targeted improvements to the Old Myriad.


2. Example: Seattle had just renovated KeyArena around 1996 and within 10-years it was obsolete. The NBA stressed that they build a new building and you know the rest of the story....

2. Example: Seattle had just renovated KeyArena around 1996 and within 10-years it was obsolete. The NBA stressed that they build a new building and you know the rest of the story....

One thing about it not being the last generation of arenas, was it had been either the smallest building footprint or one of the smallest at the time and could not hold the secondary streams of revenue that were being built into the other arena years before it's renovation.

1) has there been any serious talk about converting the arena to exhibition halls, most everything I have heard is leveling the entire building eventually. Then returning that to to the grid, with the emphasis on attracting some sort of vertical development.


One thing about it not being the last generation of arenas, was it had been either the smallest building footprint or one of the smallest at the time and could not hold the secondary streams of revenue that were being built into the other arena years before it's renovation.

1. I do remember them talking about leveling the whole building... That would have been a 'black eye' for future MAPS projects' renovations. That's why they backed off.

Having two buildings really factored in for hosting the Big 12 basketball men & womens' tournaments for OKC. Now they have split them up with bids going out separately for each. Kansas City's upgrade with the beautiful Sprint Center was the crown jewel to bring about this change.

Seattle KeyArena renovation is one reason why buildings are becoming so dysfunctional--revenue streams.

It would be a mistake to level the Cox Convention Center; considering the $50 million allocated to improve it from MAPS I. It would seem like a waste--surely they could work it into the convention center plan. Whenever I go there for various events, I can't see where $50 million was spent to upgrade it as opposed to the $50 million spent to improve
Civic Center Music Hall and restore it back to its days of the Minicipal Auditorium look and decor.

Gut the Cox Convention Center Arena, we will eventually need the exhibition space.

My apologies for expanding this thread into other areas; however this needed to be addressed as we move forward...

Hey EA Sports seems to think an OKC NFL relocation is at least 1 of 17 possibilities haha.

Madden 25 will let you move to 17 different cities, revive historic teams - JoyStiq (http://m.joystiq.com/2013/05/22/madden-25-will-let-you-move-to-17-different-cities-revive-histo/)

Just for grins lets say the NFL expands here in 15 years, but highly suggest that a stadium be located near the I-35/I-44 Turnpike interchange in NE OKC for logistical reasons (numerous highway access, fans from Tulsa have easy access, virgin area to develop, cheap land, ect). It would create a sports area comparable to the Glendale complex in suburban Phoenix. Would most be okay with it or would you guys say no since it isn't in the immediate downtown area?

Just for grins lets say the NFL expands here in 15 years, but highly suggest that a stadium be located near the I-35/I-44 Turnpike interchange in NE OKC for logistical reasons (numerous highway access, fans from Tulsa have easy access, virgin area to develop, cheap land, ect). It would create a sports area comparable to the Glendale complex in suburban Phoenix. Would most be okay with it or would you guys say no since it isn't in the immediate downtown area?

I don't think an NFL stadium makes sense in downtown. They require so much surface parking, plus, as you stated, you'd need easy access from the interstates and there's just not readily available space downtown. If we're trying to get DT to be more dense, then putting a stadium downtown goes against that. You're talking a 65K to 85K seating capacity for an NFL stadium. That parking will take up a lot of space.

Just for grins lets say the NFL expands here in 15 years, but highly suggest that a stadium be located near the I-35/I-44 Turnpike interchange in NE OKC for logistical reasons (numerous highway access, fans from Tulsa have easy access, virgin area to develop, cheap land, ect). It would create a sports area comparable to the Glendale complex in suburban Phoenix. Would most be okay with it or would you guys say no since it isn't in the immediate downtown area?

Personally think TPTB would do everything they could behind the scenes politically (in the proverbial smoke-filled room) to prevent, through all means available, any such project from ever seeing the light of day, as it would almost certainly draw development interest away from downtown.

Just for grins lets say the NFL expands here in 15 years, but highly suggest that a stadium be located near the I-35/I-44 Turnpike interchange in NE OKC for logistical reasons (numerous highway access, fans from Tulsa have easy access, virgin area to develop, cheap land, ect). It would create a sports area comparable to the Glendale complex in suburban Phoenix. Would most be okay with it or would you guys say no since it isn't in the immediate downtown area?

I would disagree that this would work. It would likely be a dead space with just a stadium and nothing else save for the occasional gas station and fast food joint.

Looking at you example of Glendale, I have friends who went to the last Super Bowl out in the Valley partied in Scottsdale and DT Phoenix. They hardly spent a dime in Glendale outside of the stadium.

Another suburban stadium, Jerryworld of Arlington (or ATT field or whatever they are calling it these days) will likely not host another Super Bowl anytime soon because it is too far out in the suburbs and nowhere close to public transportation. A lot of people who went down there complained loudly of having to drive everywhere during the SB of 2011, which was made even worse by a freak ice storm.

On the flip side, Indy got high marks last year because the stadium is located downtown and very walkable to most restaurants, hotels, etc.

Just for grins lets say the NFL expands here in 15 years, but highly suggest that a stadium be located near the I-35/I-44 Turnpike interchange in NE OKC for logistical reasons (numerous highway access, fans from Tulsa have easy access, virgin area to develop, cheap land, ect). It would create a sports area comparable to the Glendale complex in suburban Phoenix. Would most be okay with it or would you guys say no since it isn't in the immediate downtown area?

The location has pretty much been up to the owners and cities, the main thing they might suggest is allocating public funds to build and maintain it.

Just for grins lets say the NFL expands here in 15 years, but highly suggest that a stadium be located near the I-35/I-44 Turnpike interchange in NE OKC for logistical reasons (numerous highway access, fans from Tulsa have easy access, virgin area to develop, cheap land, ect). It would create a sports area comparable to the Glendale complex in suburban Phoenix. Would most be okay with it or would you guys say no since it isn't in the immediate downtown area?

Alternative 2

If you're going to go to the Turner Turnpike Junction why not just go all the way to Stroud (midway) and let it be a venture taken on by the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Alternative 3

Why not Fair Park?

This 400-acre complex has parking, a view of the skyline and utitlties in place to erect a 70,000-plus seat facility. This is were future expansion of commuter rail (in propcess) could come into play.

Alternative 4

Far Norfthwest Oklahoma City near Lake Hefner.


You know this 'NFL thing' is a pipedream; howeever, it doesn't hurt to lay a little pipe until football & basketball seasons come into play.

Praedure, I bet you didn't think your thread would would produce this many trout lines...

Only one I don't agree with is Alternative 2. First of all high speed trains would have to be put in place along with the turnpike being widened to 3 lanes. Second, if the team is just mediocre or just not good, are people going to want to drive 45-1 hour from both metros to watch the team? Probably not.

Same with any of the four major leagues--true, we want to see the home team win--fans also come to see the stars. The local team becoming the giant slayer.

Tell me the Dallas Cowboys, Green Bay Packers, New York Giants, Minnesota Vikings, Houston Texans, Denver Bronchos, New England Patriots to name a few would generate interest from both Tulsa and Oklahoma City?

We supported losing NBA franchises New Orleans (2), Thunder (2) before we had a winning season. Now you can't buy a ticket. We are past that 5 to 7 year window--one major professional sport the state can handle.

The future (12-15 years)? Do we plan now or wait for the last minute and put out a route with no concrete base or foundation on which to build. Paper foundations aren't very attractive...

Would love to see the NFL in 12-15 years? Who knows what might happen...

Same with any of the four major leagues--true, we want to see the home team win--fans also come to see the stars. The local team becoming the giant slayer.

Tell me the Dallas Cowboys, Green Bay Packers, New York Giants, Minnesota Vikings, Houston Texans, Denver Bronchos, New England Patriots to name a few would generate interest from both Tulsa and Oklahoma City?

We supported losing NBA franchises New Orleans (2), Thunder (2) before we had a winning season. Now you can't buy a ticket. We are past that 5 to 7 year window--one major professional sport the state can handle.

The future (12-15 years)? Do we plan now or wait for the last minute and put out a route with no concrete base or foundation on which to build. Paper foundations aren't very attractive...

Would love to see the NFL in 12-15 years? Who knows what might happen...

Very easy to predict. 95% chance of *zero* NFL interest in another small market city, 100% chance of NFL interest in *other*, larger, even non-domestic markets.

NBA financial dynamics < > NFL financial dynamics. By several orders of magnitude.

I would disagree that this would work. It would likely be a dead space with just a stadium and nothing else save for the occasional gas station and fast food joint.

Looking at you example of Glendale, I have friends who went to the last Super Bowl out in the Valley partied in Scottsdale and DT Phoenix. They hardly spent a dime in Glendale outside of the stadium.

Another suburban stadium, Jerryworld of Arlington (or ATT field or whatever they are calling it these days) will likely not host another Super Bowl anytime soon because it is too far out in the suburbs and nowhere close to public transportation. A lot of people who went down there complained loudly of having to drive everywhere during the SB of 2011, which was made even worse by a freak ice storm.

On the flip side, Indy got high marks last year because the stadium is located downtown and very walkable to most restaurants, hotels, etc.
Jerryworld will host many Superbowls, it also isn't "way out in the suburbs" as it sits between Dallas and Fort Worth and has the Ballpark and Six Flags in the area. Eventually they will run a train (whatever they call the one that runs between Dallas and Fort Worth) to the site, between 81 baseball games, 10 football games, Six Flags and other venues there the need will almost demand that it occur. The odds of another ice storm like that hitting at the same weekend is not all that likely to happen again.

One near downtown is still a better option, Mile High is on the other side of I-25 but of course it is where the original Mile High and McNichols Arena were located so the land was available. There are not as many parking spaces there as Jerryworld or Texas Stadium had. When we went to games before we moved up here we usually stayed downtown and took the Broncos Ride bus over to the stadium, now we go to the Park-N-Ride by our house and take the train to the stadium.

Jerryworld will host many Superbowls, it also isn't "way out in the suburbs" as it sits between Dallas and Fort Worth and has the Ballpark and Six Flags in the area. Eventually they will run a train (whatever they call the one that runs between Dallas and Fort Worth) to the site, between 81 baseball games, 10 football games, Six Flags and other venues there the need will almost demand that it occur. The odds of another ice storm like that hitting at the same weekend is not all that likely to happen again.


I was referencing the complaints many had, and the city of Arlington itself realizes. Lots of people have complained about the location, not just during the Super Bowl. Sorry, but Arlington is not an urban area or some sexy suburban area on the lines of Scottsdale, unless partying up at On the Border is your definition of a wild time.

They messed up by not building in either Dallas or Ft Worth's urban centers or by putting in near transit. Jerry Jones could have moved the stadium 5 miles to the north and been right off the TRE train line. The only way suburban stadiums work is if they are near some sort of public transportation. I have to think that Jerry Jones's influence (and cash) is probably keeping the stadium booked up, but he is no spring chicken and won't be around forever. And about that time owners and their giant ego's will certainly construct bigger, more elaborate stadiums with better access to amenities. Suddenly Jerryworld won't look so good. So they are going to need to address the transit thing fairly quickly.

Here's a good read on the whole thing: Is Arlington ready for the next big event at Cowboys Stadium? | Dallas Cowboys | Latest news ... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/04/28/4808631/is-arlington-ready-for-the-next.html)

How long can the Detroit Lions hang on in bankrupted Detroit?

Or, What about the Detroit Tigers?

I was referencing the complaints many had, and the city of Arlington itself realizes. Lots of people have complained about the location, not just during the Super Bowl. Sorry, but Arlington is not an urban area or some sexy suburban area on the lines of Scottsdale, unless partying up at On the Border is your definition of a wild time.

They messed up by not building in either Dallas or Ft Worth's urban centers or by putting in near transit. Jerry Jones could have moved the stadium 5 miles to the north and been right off the TRE train line. The only way suburban stadiums work is if they are near some sort of public transportation. I have to think that Jerry Jones's influence (and cash) is probably keeping the stadium booked up, but he is no spring chicken and won't be around forever. And about that time owners and their giant ego's will certainly construct bigger, more elaborate stadiums with better access to amenities. Suddenly Jerryworld won't look so good. So they are going to need to address the transit thing fairly quickly.

Here's a good read on the whole thing: Is Arlington ready for the next big event at Cowboys Stadium? | Dallas Cowboys | Latest news ... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/04/28/4808631/is-arlington-ready-for-the-next.html)
Jerry Jones wanted to build it in Dallas on Fair Park as a replacement to the Cotton Bowl, the City of Dallas balked and Jerry went to Arlington. The massive amount of debt from the American Airlines Center and the fact that Mayor Laura Morrison was not interested in more sporting venues (along with the many mayors of Dallas looking for something for their own districts) effectively killed the chances of it being in Dallas. He wanted it back in Dallas but Dallas (at the time) didn't want it. The amount of money he received from the City of Arlington (bonds to be repaid pack through facility/hotel taxes) was about equivalent to the AAC, he was still on the hook for upwards of $750 million. It isn't like he was looking for it to be paid by the City of Dallas or Arlington.

I do think they need to run a spur down between the Ballpark and the stadium from the TRE (I just drew a blank on the name before) which would make it easier to get there. Of course when I lived in Dallas there was talk of the ballpark being built in the east side of Downtown Dallas (Farmers Market area) but it ended up in Arlington instead.

How long can the Detroit Lions hang on in bankrupted Detroit?

Or, What about the Detroit Tigers?

Probably the vast majority of ticket holders were already in the suburbs. In some ways it will make it easier to pay debt after the fall out is over of the case. Longer term though their bigger problem is that things like migration out of town, low housing prices, crime, unusually low income of tax base, corruption and slow job creation still have a lot of work after the bankruptcy process is over if they are to be solved. Though there is also a chance one of the wealthier suburbs or the state may pick up the tab on the next stadium.