I know, I know... the possibility of getting an NFL team in OKC is a gigantic longshot (of course, not long ago, the same was said about an NBA team...)

Anyway, just for amusement

NFL is the next logical step for OKC » Sports » The Enid News and Eagle, Enid, OK (http://enidnews.com/sportslocal/x503820952/NFL-is-the-next-logical-step-for-OKC)

We have had this come up a few threads, i think this was the one most dedicated to it - Is there room for the NFL in Oklahoma? (http://www.okctalk.com/sports/28398-there-room-nfl-oklahoma.html)

I just read that article via Facebook. The biggest flaw in the author's argument is that he compares the CITY populations of OKC to several NFL cities. I think it's well-established (on here at least) that it's the METRO population that matters, as well as the rule of thumb of 1M people per franchise.

I'm certainly not going to say that it'll never happen. As the metro continues to grow, it will eventually reach 2 million, but I'm not holding out hope that it happens in my lifetime.

I don't see it happening in the next 25 years. Dallas, KC and St Louis are all pretty close. The local corporate level of sponsorship for the Thunder is unbelievable, but I don't know if there is enough to cover an NFL team as well. Because our market is so small, we would not garner the needed corporate support from other than local folks.

I'm amazed at the number of intelligent folks who can't understand the simple financial math that explains that NFL franchisees are a monstrously larger albatross for a city compared to an NBA franchise. We are amazingly fortunate to have a group who can handle the Thunder in a small market, but the broader issues of city and state dollars and demographics just scream NO to this idea. We've got a great thing going with the Thunder. Let's not get greedy and ruin it.

Maybe the city could try something ala the green bay packers.......

The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues.[22] Typically, a team is owned by one person, partnership, or corporate entity, i.e., a "team owner." The lack of a dominant owner has been stated as one of the reasons the Green Bay Packers have never been moved from the city of Green Bay, a city of only 102,313 people as of the 2000 census.[23] While the team is operated as a non-profit organization, technically it is a for-profit corporation because under Wisconsin law non-profit corporations cannot issue stock.

By comparison, the typical NFL city has a population in the millions or higher hundred-thousands. The Packers, however, have long had a large following throughout Wisconsin and parts of the Midwest; in fact, for decades, the Packers played four (one pre-season, three regular-season) home games each year in Milwaukee, first at the State Fair Park fairgrounds, then at Milwaukee County Stadium. The Packers did not move their entire home schedule to Green Bay until 1995. County Stadium's replacement, Miller Park, then being planned, was always intended to be a baseball-only stadium instead of a multipurpose stadium.

Based on the original "Articles of Incorporation for the (then) Green Bay Football Corporation" put into place in 1923, if the Packers franchise were to have been sold, after the payment of all expenses, any remaining money would go to the Sullivan Post of the American Legion in order to build "a proper soldier's memorial." This stipulation was enacted to ensure the club remained in Green Bay and that there could never be any financial enhancement for the shareholders. At the November 1997 annual meeting, shareholders voted to change the beneficiary from the Sullivan-Wallen Post to the Green Bay Packers Foundation, which makes donations to many charities and institutions throughout Wisconsin.

In 1950, the Packers held a stock sale to again raise money to support the team. In 1956, area voters approved the construction of a new city owned stadium. As with its predecessor, the new field was named City Stadium, but after the death of founder Curly Lambeau, the stadium was renamed Lambeau Field on September 11, 1965.

Another stock sale occurred late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised over $24 million, money used for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project. Priced at $200 per share, fans bought 120,010 shares during the 17-week sale, which ended March 16, 1998. The fifth sale in the team's history, which will finance further renovations to Lambeau Field, began on December 6, 2011 and will run through February 29, 2012. During this sale, 250,000 shares will be offered at $250 per share.[24] Prior to the 2011 stock sale, there were 112,015 people, representing 4,750,934 shares, who could lay claim to a franchise ownership interest.[25] Shares of stock include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges. While newly purchased shares can be given as gifts, once ownership is established, transfers are technically allowed only between immediate family members.[24] No shareholder may own over 200 shares, a safeguard to ensure that no individual can assume control of the club. To run the corporation, a board of directors is elected by the stockholders.

The team's elected president represents the Packers in NFL owners meetings, unless someone else is designated. During his time as coach, Vince Lombardi generally represented the team at league meetings in his role as general manager, except at owners-only meetings, where the team was represented by president Dominic Olejniczak.

Green Bay is the only team with this form of ownership structure in the NFL; such ownership is in direct violation of current league rules, which stipulate a limit of 32 owners of one team and one of those owners having a minimum 30% stake. However, the Packers corporation was grandfathered when the NFL's current ownership policy was established in the 1980s,[26] and are thus exempt. The Packers are also the only American major-league sports franchise to release its financial balance sheet every year.

Board of DirectorsFor more details on this topic, see Green Bay Packers Board of Directors.
Green Bay Packers, Inc., is governed by a seven-member Executive Committee, elected from a 45-member board of directors. The committee consists of a president, vice president, treasurer, secretary and three members-at-large. The president is the only officer to draw compensation; the rest of the committee is sitting "gratis." The committee directs corporate management, approves major capital expenditures, establishes broad policy and monitors management's performance in conducting the business and affairs of the corporation.

We could have a naming contest lead by our wonderful mayor mick. The Okc big leaguers would be a great name for a big league city also the bricktown ballers wouldnt be a bad name and appeal to the "urban" crowd.
Heck we could even have taco bell be the offical food of our new franchise......as long as its from the al fresca menu.

As you say it is no longer possible to spread the number of owners as wide as it was for the packers. It will take around a billion dollars to buy either an existing team or expansion rights if that happens.

If we were to imagine being the co-expansion with LA, the stadium needs to happen soon, certainly sooner than a MAPS style build after having the money comes in could be done. So the only ways that it could even be built is paying a lot of interest on bonds, the owners paying a large portion of the half to one and a half billion that new stadiums seem to cost or a combination of both.

So first off our principle owner probably either needs to be Harold Hamm or David Green (preferably both would be involved), as some reports indicate Aubrey McClendon probably is not in a position to be even consider being the primary investor. With the remaining Oklahoma billionaires listed as living in Tulsa makes it unlikely they would put a team here verses Tulsa both for their proximity and less competition for sports dollars in Tulsa.

Maybe it will have to happen the same way Oklahoma City got Thunder. An NFL team will need a stadium for a while after a disaster. It will be invited to use Pickens Stadium or the OU stadium whenever one is available. Both stadiums fill when the NFL plays, thereby leading to some NFL team wanting to transfer to OKC. Probably unlikely to ever happen, though.

That strategy has not worked particularly well for San Antonio, after twenty years the only regular season games they have hosted were like half the Saints home games in 2005, all games were near capacity. Nor has a new stadium lured a basketball team to Kansas City. While OKC's performance with the Hornets helped grease the wheels with the other owners approving a move, the core part of the Thunder moving was a group of Oklahoma businessman bought the team.

Oklahoma should not go after a pro football team until we have a considerably stronger business base. Let's say that CHK remains a fortune 500 (seems unlikely though, at this point) and DVN will obviously be a fortune 500 company. Assuming CLR becomes a F-500 soon, then that leaves OKC with 3 F-500 companies (+ other local companies like AF and MF). I would think OKC will need at least 5 such companies and a stronger "portfolio" of mid-sized companies to adequately support an NFL team along with the NBA.

I don't know why people think there's no realistic shot. It would be difficult, but it's all about the growth of the OKC economy and population against the rest of the country. If we stay growing at 2% every year, especially if other cities (particularly midwest cities) continue to grow slowly or decline in population, then yeah, it's a lot more reasonable.

To be a viable NFL market it really has nothing to do with fans... it's really about corporate support.

To give the proper perspective, OKC would essentially need 4-5 more TITLE sponsors. For example, the Thunder has Chesapeake, Devon, and I believe Midfirst. We would need probably 5 MORE similar size companies just to cover the corporate pull that an NFL team requires - ON TOP of the 3 we already have. And, that's not even touching a new stadium, infrastructure, etc...

As much as I love OKC and what we are doing, even the mere TALK of the NFL is nothing short of laughable... unfortunately.

To be a viable NFL market it really has nothing to do with fans... it's really about corporate support.

To give the proper perspective, OKC would essentially need 4-5 more TITLE sponsors. For example, the Thunder has Chesapeake, Devon, and I believe Midfirst. We would need probably 5 MORE similar size companies just to cover the corporate pull that an NFL team requires - ON TOP of the 3 we already have. And, that's not even touching a new stadium, infrastructure, etc...

As much as I love OKC and what we are doing, even the mere TALK of the NFL is nothing short of laughable... unfortunately.

...So you think it's "nothing short of laughable" that OKC could actually get 5 more major companies comparable to CHK, DVN, MF?

Maybe it will have to happen the same way Oklahoma City got Thunder. An NFL team will need a stadium for a while after a disaster. It will be invited to use Pickens Stadium or the OU stadium whenever one is available. Both stadiums fill when the NFL plays, thereby leading to some NFL team wanting to transfer to OKC. Probably unlikely to ever happen, though.

There are several reasons why that scenario, while plausible, just won't happen.

First reason that comes to my mind is because, obviously, part of the NFL and college seasons overlap. On weekends with home games, you'd have to turn over either of those stadiums in a manner of hours - think of a night game in Norman, then a 12:00 prospective pro kickoff the next day. We're not just talking about cleaning it up, or removing chairbacks; we're talking about media production crews (tearing down one, installing another), ticket taking/logistics, credentials, security, concession supplies, the works - and that doesn't even begin to address the fact that you can't sell alcohol at either venue, which would be a non-starter in the NFL world.

After reading the horror stories that have become of municipal funding of facilities approaching $500M - $1B, the idea that OKC would undertake such a proposition genuinely scares me. Heck, I love football, and the idea of OKC hosting an NFL team is incredibly awesome, but I don't want to risk the financial health of the city for the next five (?) decades to pay for it. I normally loathe doom-and-gloom scenarios, but lots of cities are living this issue, so it isn't fictional. Cincinnati, I believe, has become a poster child for How Not To Fund A Stadium. Read the ugly details here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216330349497852.html).

Lots of basic things are telling us this just isn't a good idea, unless some T. Boone Pickens type decides to drop some of his personal fortune on an OKC stadium. And I still maintain there was a plan afoot twenty-plus years ago to build one alongside I-35 between OKC and Norman back when such things were comparatively cheap, but it fell through when the rumblings of something called MAPS started making the rounds, and the participants dried up...now, I think its simply a prohibitive expense that endangers our long-term financial health.

...So you think it's "nothing short of laughable" that OKC could actually get 5 more major companies comparable to CHK, DVN, MF?

Within the next 15-20 years? Yes, it's laughable... MAYBE in 30 years it'll be a different story, but there's no way we get that many large companies to grow or move here anytime in the near future.

Within the next 15-20 years? Yes, it's laughable... MAYBE in 30 years it'll be a different story, but there's no way we get that many large companies to grow or move here anytime in the near future.

Hey yall forgot Mathis Bros. :rolleyes:

Within the next 15-20 years? Yes, it's laughable... MAYBE in 30 years it'll be a different story, but there's no way we get that many large companies to grow or move here anytime in the near future.

I mean, I'm not saying it's happening tomorrow, and I think 30 years is about right.

However, consider that CLR has F-500 status in their sights and depending on the veracity of the Mystery Tower thread, if there is a decent relocation here of some out of town company, that could be 2/5. I imagine there are several other companies in town that could see the kind of growth over the next 20 years if things fall that right direction (particularly energy companies) to get to the level of an AF or MF.

A more important trend that people are not taking into account: Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St. Louis are all growing incredibly slowly (<.5% / year) if at all. Cleveland and Detroit are actually net losing people. It's kind of scary for that part of that country, to be honest, that if one or two major companies decides to jump ship to a smaller city (like OKC, Austin, Charlotte) then you may see a surge in departure from some of these cities. I'm not saying that's a definite scenario, but it's at least possible and could bode well for the best Tier II/III cities going forward.

Even if the rust belt doesn't lose major companies...if they do not grow while other cities are, I would bet that an occasional sports team will come up for grabs. I mean...if Seattle, which has been growing at a great pace for awhile now, can lose it's beloved basketball team, I think it's plausible that the Bengals may not always be in Cincinnati.

According to Forbes, the Jaguars were the NFL's least valuable franchise, at $770 million, while the Knicks were the NBA's most valuable franchise at at $655 million. So the worst and least profitable NFL team is still worth $100 million more than the most profitable NBA team.

So... just keep in mind that what we needed to get an NBA team (an unprecedented natural disaster) still really pales in comparison to what it'd take to get an NFL team, and there's zero chance of the league allowing another Green Bay in this day and age.

According to Forbes, the Jaguars were the NFL's least valuable franchise, at $770 million, while the Knicks were the NBA's most valuable franchise at at $655 million. So the worst and least profitable NFL team is still worth $100 million more than the most profitable NBA team.

So... just keep in mind that what we needed to get an NBA team (an unprecedented natural disaster) still really pales in comparison to what it'd take to get an NFL team, and there's zero chance of the league allowing another Green Bay in this day and age.

all we really need to get an NFL team is a Billionaire (multi or in reality a few of them) to buy a team and want to move it to OKC .. period that is all we need ..

all we really need to get an NFL team is a Billionaire (multi or in reality a few of them) to buy a team and want to move it to OKC .. period that is all we need ..

Only if said billionaire wants to go broke very quickly. Say he/she was allowed to buy even the lowest value team in the league... Well, now that billionaire has paid $770 million and only has $330 million left. What about a facility? An NFL viable stadium would cost a MINIMUM of $500 million... and that might be pushing it... And, at this point we haven't even paid a secretary, much less a quarterback.

Not even close... This shouldn't even be a conversation.

Only if said billionaire wants to go broke very quickly. Say he/she was allowed to buy even the lowest value team in the league... Well, now that billionaire has paid $770 million and only has $330 million left. What about a facility? An NFL viable stadium would cost a MINIMUM of $500 million... and that might be pushing it... And, at this point we haven't even paid a secretary, much less a quarterback.

Not even close... This shouldn't even be a conversation.

which is why i said multi ... or multiple and if someone bought a team and then announced they were moving to okc ... i promise you OKC/ the state would find several 100 mil to build a stadium .. and as for year over year expenses ... well the NFL teams all make money ..

all we really need to get an NFL team is a Billionaire (multi or in reality a few of them) to buy a team and want to move it to OKC .. period that is all we need ..

All we need, except for a couple hundred million dollar stadium (at least), the infrastructure to support it, and, of course, approval of the league, which would be quite skeptical. And you say rather non-chalantly that all we need is a billionaire who wants to move, considering that a billionaire who earned their money isn't just going to decide to move a team on a whim without any guarantee that the city could support it without bankrupting them, so we'd need that too. It's a far bigger endeavor than you're giving it credit for.

Remember, to a lot of the league, we still haven't proven that we can truly support an NBA team yet, we supported them when they were new and when they were good, but that's the easy part. We haven't had to support an awful team yet that doesn't have the new-team smell, which is actually something that Seattle wasn't terrible at (but since Key Arena was so small, even filling it up pretty full meant they were in the bottom 10 of attendance).

which is why i said multi ... or multiple and if someone bought a team and then announced they were moving to okc ... i promise you OKC/ the state would find several 100 mil to build a stadium .. and as for year over year expenses ... well the NFL teams all make money ..

lol... yeah, that's why the Jaguars are going to probably be playing in London soon...

The fact is, to even keep the Thunder viable in OKC it's requiring heavy doses of shrewd planning and spending... and on top of that, it's also taking some of OKC's richest individuals making a sacrifice because having the team here is more important to them than it just making them richer.

As an example, Jacksonville has 88 luxury boxes at Everbank... And, it's part of the reason they aren't viable any longer. They need probably double that amount, AND companies willing to throw up the millions of dollars each year just so they can throw some of their clients in there to watch a crappy football team.

Chesapeake, Devon, and MidFirst are already papering the 'Peake to keep this team viable... so they would be no help with another sports franchise. So, where else in OKC are you going to find about 100 companies willing to throw about an average of $500,000 per year, that already aren't using their discretionary funds for the Thunder or OU football?

Again, shouldn't even be a conversation...

All we need, except for a couple hundred million dollar stadium (at least), the infrastructure to support it, and, of course, approval of the league, which would be quite skeptical. And you say rather non-chalantly that all we need is a billionaire who wants to move, considering that a billionaire who earned their money isn't just going to decide to move a team on a whim without any guarantee that the city could support it without bankrupting them, so we'd need that too. It's a far bigger endeavor than you're giving it credit for.

Remember, to a lot of the league, we still haven't proven that we can truly support an NBA team yet, we supported them when they were new and when they were good, but that's the easy part. We haven't had to support an awful team yet that doesn't have the new-team smell, which is actually something that Seattle wasn't terrible at (but since Key Arena was so small, even filling it up pretty full meant they were in the bottom 10 of attendance).

the NFL can not stop a team from moving to a different city see NFL v Al davis lawsuit ...


and second .. i know we are not getting a team (ever most likely) ... but NFL teams make money and if someone wanted to move to OKC i believe that OKC and the State would put 100's of mil into building a stadium ..

lol... yeah, that's why the Jaguars are going to probably be playing in London soon...

The fact is, to even keep the Thunder viable in OKC it's requiring heavy doses of shrewd planning and spending... and on top of that, it's also taking some of OKC's richest individuals making a sacrifice because having the team here is more important to them than it just making them richer.

As an example, Jacksonville has 88 luxury boxes at Everbank... And, it's part of the reason they aren't viable any longer. They need probably double that amount, AND companies willing to throw up the millions of dollars each year just so they can throw some of their clients in there to watch a crappy football team.

Chesapeake, Devon, and MidFirst are already papering the 'Peake to keep this team viable... so they would be no help with another sports franchise. So, where else in OKC are you going to find about 100 companies willing to throw about an average of $500,000 per year, that already aren't using their discretionary funds for the Thunder or OU football?

Again, shouldn't even be a conversation...

NFL teams make 65 mil a year in revenue in just National TV money (goes to 125mi in 2014) not counting ticket sales

the Jags made 25 mil last season being run poorly ..and losing lots of games ... in 14 they make 60 mil more for doing nothing differently .. and if they start winning money goes up much faster ...

also they are not going to move from Jax anytime soon .. they have the strongest lease in the league and goes to 2030 ..

and they just sold for 760 B ..

the NFL can not stop a team from moving to a different city see NFL v Al davis lawsuit ...


and second .. i know we are not getting a team (ever most likely) ... but NFL teams make money and if someone wanted to move to OKC i believe that OKC and the State would put 100's of mil into building a stadium ..

Not in the legal sense, but as Al Davis learned, owners that try to move without the league's blessing don't get very far. He could move in name, but the league gave him the cold shoulder. He was forced to move back and tried to sue them again, losing pretty significantly. That's why the league can put restrictions and conditions on a team moving to LA now, because moving without the league is a poor prospect.

And while it's true that, before taxes and other obligations, most franchises do earn money (there's usually at least one exception every year), they don't typically earn money for the city/state, just the people who run the franchises. That's why there was a backlash in Seattle against building a new arena for the Sonics that wasn't at least half-funded by the owners, cities usually lose money on sports franchises. City's agree to bear some of the costs of building stadiums because they view it as valuable amenities, not because it benefits the bottom line for anyone other than the owners (and even then, it may not be enough to recoup the investment costs). If the state at large had to put up 600 million to build an NFL stadium, it'd be a pretty bad investment even if we could make a team of billionaires materialize out of thin air to buy a franchise.

NFL teams make 65 mil a year in revenue in just National TV money (goes to 125mi in 2014) not counting ticket sales

the Jags made 25 mil last season being run poorly ..and losing lots of games ... in 14 they make 60 mil more for doing nothing differently .. and if they start winning money goes up much faster ...

also they are not going to move from Jax anytime soon .. they have the strongest lease in the league and goes to 2030 ..

and they just sold for 760 B ..


Shad Khan the new kid on the block bought the Jags after first trying to buy the Rams. Shad is a billionaire and owns some type of auto parts co. that sells world wide.Rams owner Stan Kroenke had 1st right of refusal and ended up buying the Rams 100% after he already owned 40%. Stan is worth over 4 bil and his wife Ann (Walton) Kroenke is worth close to 5 bil. They are now in the process of working on a stadium in St. Louis. Stan also owns the Denver Nuggets and Pepsi center. He also owns the Arsenal Soccer team in London. His son Josh played for Mizzou BTW and now runs the Denver Nuggets. Then we have Jerry Jones... Point is,does OKC have any of these types that are willing to step up and buy an NFL team? More than likely it would prob. have to be an expansion team but whoever get one of those expansion teams better have a bil of disposable money laying around. Is Harold Hamm an NFL fan?

Shad Khan the new kid on the block bought the Jags after first trying to buy the Rams. Shad is a billionaire and owns some type of auto parts co. that sells world wide.Rams owner Stan Kroenke had 1st right of refusal and ended up buying the Rams 100% after he already owned 40%. Stan is worth over 4 bil and his wife Ann (Walton) Kroenke is worth close to 5 bil. They are now in the process of working on a stadium in St. Louis. Stan also owns the Denver Nuggets and Pepsi center. He also owns the Arsenal Soccer team in London. His son Josh played for Mizzou BTW and now runs the Denver Nuggets. Then we have Jerry Jones... Point is,does OKC have any of these types that are willing to step up and buy an NFL team? More than likely it would prob. have to be an expansion team but whoever get one of those expansion teams better have a bil of disposable money laying around. Is Harold Hamm an NFL fan?

The OWNERSHIP part is easy... we certainly have people in OKC that can afford to BUY a team... unfortunately OKC is not a viable market to SUSTAIN a team. That's the whole point here. It's not about being able to buy a team.

Not in the legal sense, but as Al Davis learned, owners that try to move without the league's blessing don't get very far. He could move in name, but the league gave him the cold shoulder. He was forced to move back and tried to sue them again, losing pretty significantly. That's why the league can put restrictions and conditions on a team moving to LA now, because moving without the league is a poor prospect.

And while it's true that, before taxes and other obligations, most franchises do earn money (there's usually at least one exception every year), they don't typically earn money for the city/state, just the people who run the franchises. That's why there was a backlash in Seattle against building a new arena for the Sonics that wasn't at least half-funded by the owners, cities usually lose money on sports franchises. City's agree to bear some of the costs of building stadiums because they view it as valuable amenities, not because it benefits the bottom line for anyone other than the owners (and even then, it may not be enough to recoup the investment costs). If the state at large had to put up 600 million to build an NFL stadium, it'd be a pretty bad investment even if we could make a team of billionaires materialize out of thin air to buy a franchise.

al davis won the law suit ... the NFL did not want him to move back to oakland ...

al davis won the law suit ... the NFL did not want him to move back to oakland ...

You've got it backwards. They were in Oakland until 81. Davis tried to get a new arena deal, failed, then wanted to move the team to LA. The league voted against it and there was an injunction filed. Davis sued the league on anti-trust grounds, won, and got the right to move to LA. The deal never really worked out for him and he tried to move back to Oakland in 89. That fell through, but it wasn't the league that did it, it was other issues. Then a few years later, he moved back and sued the NFL, saying they didn't support him enough in the move, and he lost that lawsuit.

He won the lawsuit that allowed him to move to LA in 82, but lost the one about the lack of support from the league after he was forced to move back.

al davis won the law suit ... the NFL did not want him to move back to oakland ...

wrong on so many levels... Al tried to move the team to LA in 1980, and the NFL filed a court injunction to prevent him from doing so. In 1982, he won, and moved the team.

the lawsuit in 1995 when he moved the team back to Oakland had nothing to do with could he move the team, it was that he believed the NFL and the other owners purposely sabotaged his attempt to build a new stadium at Hollywood Park in Inglewood. the NFL won this case, in 2001 if i remember correctly, and about 2 years later it was over turned by the appellate court. This was when there was talk again of Al wanting to move the team back to LA cause the court had ruled in his favor and he thought the NFL would not stand in his way. Then it went to the State supreme court of california and in 2007, they ruled against the Raiders and that was the end of that case.

Al Davis was also the only NFL owner to side with the USFL in their antitrust suit in 1986.

Davis also tried to sue the NFL saying that he had sole authority for an LA team sometime in the mid 1990's but that never really got anywhere.



so here are the facts... yes, an owner can move a team, really anywhere and at any time they want, but the league has it's ways of saying no.... and on the idea of buying a team and moving it here... the NFL votes on all majore ownership purchases... so if a group from OKC wanted to buy an NFL team to bring here, they would have to get approved by the NFL owners before the sale of the team went through. and i already know of 3 owners that would vote against, the cowboys, rams, chiefs.. because it would affect their markets.

so i got the move the nfl tried to block incorrect ... but the point is owners can move their team ... period ...

so i got the move the nfl tried to block incorrect ... but the point is owners can move their team ... period ...

Actually the point is they really can't.

so i got the move the nfl tried to block incorrect ... but the point is owners can move their team ... period ...

Theoretically, I could become starting QB for the Detroit Lions, it doesn't mean I could actually pull it off. That's really the point, Davis did move the team, and then had to move back because going against every owner in the league made it unsustainable. The league as an entity does a lot for franchises, Davis underestimated what he could do on his own and tried to sue for what the league wouldn't do. In that, he failed.

Practically speaking, you need the league's blessing if you're going to be viable. If Davis couldn't make it work in LA, the second biggest media market in the country, than an errant billionaire who somehow buys a team (league still has to approve ownership, that wasn't part of the suit) isn't going to be able to move to a small market without league approval. That's the reality of the situation, it takes more than a billion dollars and brass balls to get a viable NFL franchise in a city. At the end of the day, the league won the war against Davis, they got what they wanted, the team back in Oakland and their own power strengthened.

Now, that all that has been said, if current trends remain, OKC will be as large or larger than Cleveland by 2035. If current trends diverge in a fortuitous direction, then it could be even sooner...

The OWNERSHIP part is easy... we certainly have people in OKC that can afford to BUY a team... unfortunately OKC is not a viable market to SUSTAIN a team. That's the whole point here. It's not about being able to buy a team.

What do you mean OKC is not a viable market? You fill the stadium 8 times a year. Yes 8 games a year... Did you hear me right? 8 games a year you have to fill the stadium for NFL football. Easily done in just about any market. OKC is not a transient city like LA or Atlanta or even Dallas. Look at the Thunder as example. The City would go full bore for an NFL team.

What you need is some big boys to pick up the slack when your team is not winning after 5-7 years. The NFL has a blackout rule and if the home team does not sell enough tickets then the game is blacked out in the home city.This creates an eviroment where fans start losing interest in the team. Bad NFL rule that needs to change IMO.

But as far as being a viable market? Hogwash. A new nfl owner wants to control the lucrative parking/tailgaiting areas/lots around the stadium. They want a cheap/low lease with stadium. But the NFL has revenue sharing so every team is going to make a huge amount of money from the tv contract. It has nothing to do with OKC being a viable market. In fact,supporting an NBA team is harder than supporting and NFL team. OKC could EASILY support an NFL team, Tulsa could EASILY support an NFL team.... Now go try and get one,that's a whole other story. But OKC not having or getting an NFL team has nothing to do with being a viable market,Nothing.

so here are the facts... yes, an owner can move a team, really anywhere and at any time they want, but the league has it's ways of saying no.... and on the idea of buying a team and moving it here... the NFL votes on all majore ownership purchases... so if a group from OKC wanted to buy an NFL team to bring here, they would have to get approved by the NFL owners before the sale of the team went through. and i already know of 3 owners that would vote against, the cowboys, rams, chiefs.. because it would affect their markets.

As long as you are paying enough to make the price of all franchise rise it is usually a rubber stamp to buy a team

Jerry Jones would fight it to his death. Jerry not only claims Tx but Ok. and Arky as well. He has enough power/nfl owner buddies to veto Okc. I doubt OKC will ever get an NFL team unless we see a growth spurt akin to Atlanta.Then Jerry would be put out to pasture.

Jerry Jones would fight it to his death. Jerry not only claims Tx but Ok. and Arky as well. He has enough power/nfl owner buddies to veto Okc. I doubt OKC will ever get an NFL team unless we see a growth spurt akin to Atlanta.Then Jerry would be put out to pasture.

Again if x person is the owner of a team the nfl can't stop a move Al Davis moved his team to a city that already had a team

What do you mean OKC is not a viable market? You fill the stadium 8 times a year. Yes 8 games a year... Did you hear me right? 8 games a year you have to fill the stadium for NFL football. Easily done in just about any market. OKC is not a transient city like LA or Atlanta or even Dallas. Look at the Thunder as example. The City would go full bore for an NFL team.

What you need is some big boys to pick up the slack when your team is not winning after 5-7 years. The NFL has a blackout rule and if the home team does not sell enough tickets then the game is blacked out in the home city.This creates an eviroment where fans start losing interest in the team. Bad NFL rule that needs to change IMO.

But as far as being a viable market? Hogwash. A new nfl owner wants to control the lucrative parking/tailgaiting areas/lots around the stadium. They want a cheap/low lease with stadium. But the NFL has revenue sharing so every team is going to make a huge amount of money from the tv contract. It has nothing to do with OKC being a viable market. In fact,supporting an NBA team is harder than supporting and NFL team. OKC could EASILY support an NFL team, Tulsa could EASILY support an NFL team.... Now go try and get one,that's a whole other story. But OKC not having or getting an NFL team has nothing to do with being a viable market,Nothing.

I guess you just aren't paying attention. And, you obviously know NOTHING about the economics of the NFL. Filling the cheap seats is irrelevant. You have to have enough corporate support to pay for 100+ luxury suites EVERY year. We are not even close.

Again, this shouldn't even be a conversation.

OKC is not a viable market for a second pro team. There's been a ton of research done on this and a city needs about a million people (OKC may actually need a little more because the average salary is so much lower than in other major cities) for every pro team. OKC is just big enough to support one pro team. Getting a second one would not work long term. This discussion will be relevant again once OKC is over 2 million people in the metro...

OKC is not a viable market for a second pro team. There's been a ton of research done on this and a city needs about a million people (OKC may actually need a little more because the average salary is so much lower than in other major cities) for every pro team. OKC is just big enough to support one pro team. Getting a second one would not work long term. This discussion will be relevant again once OKC is over 2 million people in the metro...

Right, which will likely be some time between 2030 and 2040...That's not that far away folks...

Right, which will likely be some time between 2030 and 2040...That's not that far away folks...

Yeah, but if everyone's population is growing near the same rate... then there may be a lot of competition: World Population - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BbkQiQyaYc) ;)

BTW, I'd also argue that OU and OSU football serve as de facto professional franschises by the financial commitment they require. An NFL team would definitely harm those programs severely.

Yeah, but if everyone's population is growing near the same rate... then there may be a lot of competition: World Population - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BbkQiQyaYc) ;)

BTW, I'd also argue that OU and OSU football serve as de facto professional franschises by the financial commitment they require. An NFL team would definitely harm those programs severely.

They're not though. OKC is the 9th fastest growing MSA among the Top 50 MSAs. Cleveland and Detroit's populations are actually declining. Cincy, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, are all barely growing.

They're not though. OKC is the 9th fastest growing MSA among the Top 50 MSAs. Cleveland and Detroit's populations are actually declining. Cincy, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, are all barely growing.

Yeah, but OKC is dramatically behind a lot of these cities. It would have to sustain drastic growth over a long period to catch up. Unlikely.

Yeah, but OKC is dramatically behind a lot of these cities. It would have to sustain drastic growth over a long period to catch up. Unlikely.

I don't see a reason for OKC to slow it's growth. Unless American energy companies just absolutely tank, OKC doesn't appear to be growing on a bubble. It's growing in concert with the rest of the large Texas cities. The only other areas growing quicker are the NC cities in the Piedmont Atlantic, Denver, and DC.

And OKC easily has the biggest negative national reputation to overcome of all those cities.

San Antonio may get an NFL team before OKC, but I'd think the Texans/Cowboys would fight that harder than an OKC market. I'm not yet convinced that Cleveland and Cincinnati will both hold onto their 2M population for the next 30 years, let alone their NFL teams.

I don't see a reason for OKC to slow it's growth. Unless American energy companies just absolutely tank, OKC doesn't appear to be growing on a bubble. It's growing in concert with the rest of the large Texas cities. The only other areas growing quicker are the NC cities in the Piedmont Atlantic, Denver, and DC.

And OKC easily has the biggest negative national reputation to overcome of all those cities.

San Antonio may get an NFL team before OKC, but I'd think the Texans/Cowboys would fight that harder than an OKC market. I'm not yet convinced that Cleveland and Cincinnati will both hold onto their 2M population for the next 30 years, let alone their NFL teams.

The energy market is volatile. There's no way to no whether it will hold up. Heck, it's possible that both Chesapeake and Sandridge could be gone within a few years. Both are on shaky grounds. How would that effect the local economy? I hope OKC continues to grow, but you can never count on these things. Unfortunately, OKC still has a ways to go to compare to most major cities and it lost momentum it could be hard to regain because of the current disadvantages.

I don't see a reason for OKC to slow it's growth. Unless American energy companies just absolutely tank, OKC doesn't appear to be growing on a bubble. It's growing in concert with the rest of the large Texas cities. The only other areas growing quicker are the NC cities in the Piedmont Atlantic, Denver, and DC.

And OKC easily has the biggest negative national reputation to overcome of all those cities.

San Antonio may get an NFL team before OKC, but I'd think the Texans/Cowboys would fight that harder than an OKC market. I'm not yet convinced that Cleveland and Cincinnati will both hold onto their 2M population for the next 30 years, let alone their NFL teams.

The energy market has boomed and burst in the past, there's no reason to really believe that it'd be impossible for that to happen now. Every market is volatile, so it's always going to be a huge risk for the economy of a city to be so heavily dependent on one market.

OKC is not a viable market for a second pro team. There's been a ton of research done on this and a city needs about a million people (OKC may actually need a little more because the average salary is so much lower than in other major cities) for every pro team. OKC is just big enough to support one pro team. Getting a second one would not work long term. This discussion will be relevant again once OKC is over 2 million people in the metro...

So build the NFL stadium between Oklahoma City and Tulsa to get Tulsa involved and get your over 2 million people that way. Of course, the billion dollar question is: are very many people going to be willing to drive 50 - 75 miles, or more, to a stadium?

So build the NFL stadium between Oklahoma City and Tulsa to get Tulsa involved and get your over 2 million people that way. Of course, the billion dollar question is: are very many people going to be willing to drive 50 - 75 miles, or more, to a stadium?

While I am sure Stroud would be all for it, it would probably be more feasible to build it in Tulsa than halfway between.

While I am sure Stroud would be all for it, it would probably be more feasible to build it in Tulsa than halfway between. Why do you feel it would be more feasible to build in Tulsa? I think Stroud would be a great location and get support for the NFL from both major metropolitian areas in the State. Tulsa alone could not support a team, OKC, maybe?

Why do you feel it would be more feasible to build in Tulsa? I think Stroud would be a great location and get support for the NFL from both major metropolitian areas in the State. Tulsa alone could not support a team, OKC, maybe?

Unless you get near equal steaks in the ownership, corporate support and city/county subsidies between the OKC & Tulsa; It is going in the city with more ownership/corporations/subsidies. As it has been stated, OKC is in reasonable shape to support one pro team, we need both growth in number of large corporate backers and population to really be in a position to have both NFL and NBA longterm. Tulsa is pretty close on population but having enough corporate support is more suspect.

Another problem with halfway between is it is equally bad access for both cities. It goes contrary to the concept of making it as easy as possible for your high end clientele that bring in the bulk of your stadium revenue. During lean years two hours of driving will be one more reason not to go.

Most stadiums built today are built with a mix of city, county and sometimes state backing. The city and county it would financially benefit can not contribute a meaningful amount of the construction budget, It is extremely rare for any city to help in a project like this not in their city limits and the state is in no position to be building a stadium at this time.

Okay, I didn't think this coversation was that reasonable to begin with... but the suggestion of Tulsa having the NFL team is absolute lunacy. lol.

I am a Minnesota Vikings fan and I would love to go to Vikings games if they have a NFL team here but I do not think it will ever happen

I am a Minnesota Vikings fan and I would love to go to Vikings games if they have a NFL team here but I do not think it will ever happen

You can always drive down to Dallas or up to Kansas City or St. Louis. Heck, you could fly up to Minneapolis if you have the time and are willing to do that.

Living in Cleveland I've come to understand that the NFL is a cultural thing. Wins and losses aside, ever you're city is an NFL city or it isn't. If not, it won't work out when the team starts losing. That's why the greatest NFL cities are concentrated in the North...like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Indianapolis, even Green Bay.

I'm a Vikings fan too, and I go see them play whenever they play in Dallas. One of these days I'll go back to Minnesota for a game, but haven't been to one there since I lived there. I do not expect to have an NFL team here for the forseeable future.

Living in Cleveland I've come to understand that the NFL is a cultural thing. Wins and losses aside, ever you're city is an NFL city or it isn't. If not, it won't work out when the team starts losing. That's why the greatest NFL cities are concentrated in the North...like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Indianapolis, even Green Bay.

I would not be surprised if Buffalo loses the Bills in the next twenty years

Wouldn't that be Stillwater then?
Nah, Stillwater is too far away from Oklahoma City and Tulsa. 65 miles away versus 50 miles or so for Stroud. OSU has a hard time filling up Pickens Stadium and Iba-Gallagher Arena.

I'm a Vikings fan too, and I go see them play whenever they play in Dallas. One of these days I'll go back to Minnesota for a game, but haven't been to one there since I lived there. I do not expect to have an NFL team here for the forseeable future.

You and I should go a Vikings game in Minnesota when they build the new stadium

You can always drive down to Dallas or up to Kansas City or St. Louis. Heck, you could fly up to Minneapolis if you have the time and are willing to do that.

I am planning to fly to Minneapolis when they build the new stadium