I would like to think that one of the reasons that the OKC Thunder team sucks so much is because they call themselves "OKC" instead of "Oklahoma". They did receive lots of tax dollars from the whole state, but decided to selfishly name themselves after only the town.
The team is the worst in the NBA. having only won one game out of their first seventeen.
It is a shame, but I haven't taken a bit of interest in the team, and neither has anyone that I know.
They doomed it from the beginning for exactly the reason that you are saying.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
It is a shame, but I haven't taken a bit of interest in the team, and neither has anyone that I know.
They doomed it from the beginning for exactly the reason that you are saying.
Really...if they were called the "Oklahoma Thunder" you'd just be whining that there were no games scheduled in Tulsa.
Question, are there are no Kansas City Chiefs fans in Wichita? No Green Bay Packers fans in Milwaukee? No Chicago Bears fans in Springfield? No Denver Broncos fans in Colorado Springs?
Oh wait. Maybe the citizens of these places aren't immature, petty & saddled with an inferiority/superiority (tailored to the issue, of course) complex.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
It is a shame, but I haven't taken a bit of interest in the team, and neither has anyone that I know.
They doomed it from the beginning for exactly the reason that you are saying.
Really...if they were called the "Oklahoma Thunder" you'd just be whining that there were no games scheduled in Tulsa.
Question, are there are no Kansas City Chiefs fans in Wichita? No Green Bay Packers fans in Milwaukee? No Chicago Bears fans in Springfield? No Denver Broncos fans in Colorado Springs?
Oh wait. Maybe the citizens of these places aren't immature, petty & saddled with an inferiority/superiority (tailored to the issue, of course) complex.
Has nothing to do with that.
Has everything to do with:
1. The team being marketed as a statewide team.
2. The team being granted state tax breaks for operation here, yet OKC lawmakers screech and whine when we ask for state funds to keep a hospital from shuttering up.
Present a better argument then the 'inferiority complex' rubbish.
It is the tax dollar thing for me.
Millions of Tulsa dollars going to the team means they should have been more cognizant of the attitude of the rest of the state.
The way it is now, they are called OKC and they are the losingest team in the league.
Call me whatever name you want. OKC equals loser on this one.
Tax dollar thing for me too. $60,000,000+ over the next 7 years (something like that). I'd complain if Tulsa used equal tax money from OKC for such a thing. A total abuse of the "jobs" program as entertainment was specifically prohibited (circulation of money from one entertainment source to another generally, not an inflow).
I do admit to having a minimal interest in the NBA anyway. But the tax thing, no marketing to Tulsa, and what appears to me an attempt to exclude Tulsa and the rest of the state gives me reason to actively avoid the team. I don't think I'm just being bitter.
My guess: the team leaves when the tax incentives and cheap arena rent goes away. Hope I'm wrong for the sake of OKC. Competition for city atmosphere down the turnpike might wake Tulsa up sooner or later.
People to blame:
67 - Lamons
68 - Benge (SPONSORED THE BILL!!)
71 - Sullivan
77 - Proctor
79 - Watson
23 - Tibbs
and guess what? All the above who voted Yay were rewarded with reelection last month. So, yeah, we apparently like to vote against our own-self interest & then b*tch and moan about it when it happens.
I see some high-profile Oklahoma City area reps. voting Nay on this bill, Kern, Terrill, Wesselhoft...
So yeah, keep blaming the team & the ownership of the team.
Instead of the majority of Tulsa House reps. that voted in favor of (one sponsoring) the bill. SB1819.
As far as I can tell they branded the team OKC and that is the only place they marketed it. I haven't seen a single commercial or much of anything else other than some can koozies at Target. They should have players on the road all over the state doing PR tours, signing autographs, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
People to blame:
67 - Lamons
68 - Benge (SPONSORED THE BILL!!)
71 - Sullivan
77 - Proctor
79 - Watson
23 - Tibbs
and guess what? All the above who voted Yay were rewarded with reelection last month. So, yeah, we apparently like to vote against our own-self interest & then b*tch and moan about it when it happens.
I see some high-profile Oklahoma City area reps. voting Nay on this bill, Kern, Terrill, Wesselhoft...
So yeah, keep blaming the team & the ownership of the team.
Instead of the majority of Tulsa House reps. that voted in favor of (one sponsoring) the bill. SB1819.
Since when have elected officials in this state actually represented their constituency?
Keep trying...
BTW, how many season tickets do you own?
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
People to blame:
67 - Lamons
68 - Benge (SPONSORED THE BILL!!)
71 - Sullivan
77 - Proctor
79 - Watson
23 - Tibbs
and guess what? All the above who voted Yay were rewarded with reelection last month. So, yeah, we apparently like to vote against our own-self interest & then b*tch and moan about it when it happens.
I see some high-profile Oklahoma City area reps. voting Nay on this bill, Kern, Terrill, Wesselhoft...
So yeah, keep blaming the team & the ownership of the team.
Instead of the majority of Tulsa House reps. that voted in favor of (one sponsoring) the bill. SB1819.
Since when have elected officials in this state actually represented their constituency?
Keep trying...
BTW, how many season tickets do you own?
This is not about me.
So, enough with your red herrings.
Blame the reps. & senators that obviously don't represent you or your tax money. They're the ones shipping it down the 'pike.
Furthermore, I am not the one whining and wishing ill-will on a team b/c i'm bent out of shape over the name, either.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
People to blame:
67 - Lamons
68 - Benge (SPONSORED THE BILL!!)
71 - Sullivan
77 - Proctor
79 - Watson
23 - Tibbs
and guess what? All the above who voted Yay were rewarded with reelection last month. So, yeah, we apparently like to vote against our own-self interest & then b*tch and moan about it when it happens.
I see some high-profile Oklahoma City area reps. voting Nay on this bill, Kern, Terrill, Wesselhoft...
So yeah, keep blaming the team & the ownership of the team.
Instead of the majority of Tulsa House reps. that voted in favor of (one sponsoring) the bill. SB1819.
Since when have elected officials in this state actually represented their constituency?
Keep trying...
BTW, how many season tickets do you own?
This is not about me.
So, enough with your red herrings.
Blame the reps. & senators that obviously don't represent you or your tax money. They're the ones shipping it down the 'pike.
Furthermore, I am not the one whining and wishing ill-will on a team b/c i'm bent out of shape over the name, either.
Still didn't answer my question, so I'll assume at least one then.
[:O]
And I'm not whining; but if a corporation is going to market itself as statewide, and use statewide funds, then where is the statewide presence?
What I thought.
I do blame my reps. Always have.
I can not really "blame" the company/ownership group for taking as much money as they can get. It is good business. But that does not mean I have to support it either.
Tulsa fans are bitter no doubt. They prefer to support TU sports. The idea that the team would receive more support statewide had it been named for Oklahoma rather than OKC doesn't seem reasonable to me. In fact, it seems petty. Yes, we helped pay for it but OKC is the cash/money brand, not Oklahoma. They aren't losing games because of their location. They have good fan support for a new team in a poor state.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Tulsa fans are bitter no doubt. They prefer to support TU sports. The idea that the team would receive more support statewide had it been named for Oklahoma rather than OKC doesn't seem reasonable to me. In fact, it seems petty. Yes, we helped pay for it but OKC is the cash/money brand, not Oklahoma. They aren't losing games because of their location. They have good fan support for a new team in a poor state.
I compare the situation to teams like the Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, and the Utah Jazz. First some population stats:
Indianapolis metro population: 2 million
Indiana state population: 6.3 million
Minneapolis-St Paul metro population: 3.5 million
Minnesota state population: 5.2 million
Salt Lake City metro population: 1 million
Utah state population: 2.6 million
Oklahoma City metro population: 1.25 million
Oklahoma state population: 3.6 million
Oklahoma City is a small market for an NBA team. Teams that are named for the state rather than the city usually are in small markets. And these teams are located in states with only 1 NBA team (Golden State Warriors are a notable semi-exception.) And you might want to disregard the Minnesota stats, because it's possible the team is named Minnesota instead of Minneapolis is because nobody wanted to leave out St Paul. Minnesota knows how to get the entire state behind their teams (Timberwolves, Twins, Vikings.) The Thunder need the entire state, and they turned their back on almost 2/3 of the state. I've never lived in OKC and I've only been there a handful of times, so I have no ties with the city. However, I do have ties with the state of Oklahoma because I live here now and I grew up right on the state line. And since I have no ties to OKC, I see no reason to support their team (their bland, generic logo doesn't make me want to support them either.)
And I'm not even from here, so while I think I understand the OKC-Tulsa rivalry, I don't have any long-standing biases (other than thinking that Tulsa is a far nicer city than OKC) like natives sometimes have.
What strikes me with those figures is that the cities' population represent from 1/3 to 1/2 of the state populations. OKC is also 1/3 of the state pop. The difference then is scale. We are a smaller market and it will take some time build identification with the team.
Making it a state team just won't make much difference. No amount of pandering to Tulsa or the rest of the state would change the dynamics of consumerism in Oklahoma. The north eastern part is dominated by Tulsa and Kansas City, the southern half is dominated by OKC and Dallas. Smaller communities tend to travel to the larger ones for deeper choices in spending. Here's where the friction comes in. Their market is larger and yet we make it a personal, emotional, ego issue. If Tulsa were to jump on the wagon for supporting the Thunder there would be little argument left that there is no reason for passenger train service between the two cities. Business between the two areas would demand more convenience. Thats why highways are built between smaller communities like Pryor and Tulsa. But we keep arguing that we deserve it by fairness. Or legality or because we're prettier, smarter and more cosmopolitan. I just don't think thats going to work.
OKC is following nature, we're cursing it.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Tulsa fans are bitter no doubt. They prefer to support TU sports. The idea that the team would receive more support statewide had it been named for Oklahoma rather than OKC doesn't seem reasonable to me. In fact, it seems petty. Yes, we helped pay for it but OKC is the cash/money brand, not Oklahoma. They aren't losing games because of their location. They have good fan support for a new team in a poor state.
I compare the situation to teams like the Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, and the Utah Jazz. First some population stats:
Indianapolis metro population: 2 million
Indiana state population: 6.3 million
Minneapolis-St Paul metro population: 3.5 million
Minnesota state population: 5.2 million
Salt Lake City metro population: 1 million
Utah state population: 2.6 million
Oklahoma City metro population: 1.25 million
Oklahoma state population: 3.6 million
Oklahoma City is a small market for an NBA team. Teams that are named for the state rather than the city usually are in small markets. And these teams are located in states with only 1 NBA team (Golden State Warriors are a notable semi-exception.) And you might want to disregard the Minnesota stats, because it's possible the team is named Minnesota instead of Minneapolis is because nobody wanted to leave out St Paul. Minnesota knows how to get the entire state behind their teams (Timberwolves, Twins, Vikings.) The Thunder need the entire state, and they turned their back on almost 2/3 of the state. I've never lived in OKC and I've only been there a handful of times, so I have no ties with the city. However, I do have ties with the state of Oklahoma because I live here now and I grew up right on the state line. And since I have no ties to OKC, I see no reason to support their team (their bland, generic logo doesn't make me want to support them either.)
And I'm not even from here, so while I think I understand the OKC-Tulsa rivalry, I don't have any long-standing biases (other than thinking that Tulsa is a far nicer city than OKC) like natives sometimes have.
You're comparing Oklahoma... with two metropolitan areas... to states with only one metropolitan area. Indiana? Indianapolis. Utah? Salt Lake City. Minnesota? Minneapolis-St.Paul (no, they are RIGHT next to each other, so it counts as only one metro area). Oklahoma? Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?
we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks. oh...yeah. wait. huh? hmm. nevermind.
Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks. oh...yeah. wait. huh? hmm. nevermind.
Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*
Apples and oranges.
Last I checked, the AAA Redhawks didn't ask for a state handout and weren't marketed as a 'statewide' team. But conveniently don't bring those points up.
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks. oh...yeah. wait. huh? hmm. nevermind.
Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*
Apples and oranges.
Last I checked, the AAA Redhawks didn't ask for a state handout and weren't marketed as a 'statewide' team. But conveniently don't bring those points up.
[xx(]
They weren't 'marketed' as a Statewide team....
they're name *was* the Oklahoma RedHawks... O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A.
$60,000,000 / 15 years = $4,000,000 / yr
$4,000,000 / 3,617,316 (2000) = $1.10 / yr
If you think these TIFs doesn't cost you more than $1.10, in loss of revenue for direct local services, you're dreaming.
But, hey, we have another crappy bookstore! We have another McDonalds, another Arby's!
Which is sucking a lot more money than $1.10 per person a year.
Again, you're blaming the team for asking. When you should only blame the legislature for giving.
Waterboy is correct.
/thread
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks. oh...yeah. wait. huh? hmm. nevermind.
Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*
Apples and oranges.
Last I checked, the AAA Redhawks didn't ask for a state handout and weren't marketed as a 'statewide' team. But conveniently don't bring those points up.
[xx(]
They weren't 'marketed' as a Statewide team....
they're name *was* the Oklahoma RedHawks... O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A.
$60,000,000 / 15 years = $4,000,000 / yr
$4,000,000 / 3,617,316 (2000) = $1.10 / yr
If you think these TIFs doesn't cost you more than $1.10, in loss of revenue for direct local services, you're dreaming.
But, hey, we have another crappy bookstore! We have another McDonalds, another Arby's!
Which is sucking a lot more money than $1.10 per person a year.
Again, you're blaming the team for asking. When you should only blame the legislature for giving.
Waterboy is correct.
/thread
Just because you name something for the state doesn't mean you're marketing for them. The NBA and Bennett actively promoted this team as 'Oklahoma's Team'.
What a crock.
And just because the legislature voted it in doesn't absolve the organization from responsibility in taking the handout. Sure, the elected officials are to blame, but who is the end beneficiary?
Enjoy your season tickets.
The OKC team was doomed from the beginning. The owners only purchased this team, a very valuable Seattle squad, to drag it to Oklahoma in order to strip it of all value. They will make money in OKC, they just won't have better than average players. That's the way you make money when you cut your potential market down by 60 to 75%, or more. See: Hugh Culverhouse.
Might as well expect losing seasons from here on out.
1.10 * 15 * 905,000 (Tulsa MSA) = $15,000,000. Isn't that about what OSU Medical Center needs to survive? Bah! Oh well, send it down the turnpike to the NBA.
quote:
Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?
Yes. Tulsans personally write checks to the State year after year. Business send money to the state year after year. A disproportionate share of that money then stays in OKC. For things like moving highways, government jobs, public health care, to support your tourism industry and for professional sports teams.
If you are arguing that each municipality should pay it's own way in the state and reap the rewards of what it is able to produce, I'm certainly game for that. With 65% of the exports of Oklahoma we'd be happy to keep our wealth in the metro area. I believe for every $1 sent to OKC, Tulsa gets back 72 cents while OKC actually draws money from the state (read $1+ back for each kicked in).
So that sounds OK, a ~40% increase in local funding would be just fine with me. If you want to argue that OKC deserves state funding for NBA team because it produces the wealth, then let's make it official. OKC can spend every penny in state funds that it generates, and no more.
Short of that, it is a state wide subsidy for your season tickets.
And again, further than a Tulsa/OKC thing... State subsidies for pro teams is a bad concept all around. If a municipality wants a team, an owner thinks they can make money on a team, and fans want to see a team - why can't they pay for it?
To rectify this situation please send my family our $50 share of the NBA subsidy.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1.10 * 15 * 905,000 (Tulsa MSA) = $15,000,000. Isn't that about what OSU Medical Center needs to survive? Bah! Oh well, send it down the turnpike to the NBA.
quote:
Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?
Yes. Tulsans personally write checks to the State year after year. Business send money to the state year after year. A disproportionate share of that money then stays in OKC. For things like moving highways, government jobs, public health care, to support your tourism industry and for professional sports teams.
If you are arguing that each municipality should pay it's own way in the state and reap the rewards of what it is able to produce, I'm certainly game for that. With 65% of the exports of Oklahoma we'd be happy to keep our wealth in the metro area. I believe for every $1 sent to OKC, Tulsa gets back 72 cents while OKC actually draws money from the state (read $1+ back for each kicked in).
So that sounds OK, a ~40% increase in local funding would be just fine with me. If you want to argue that OKC deserves state funding for NBA team because it produces the wealth, then let's make it official. OKC can spend every penny in state funds that it generates, and no more.
Short of that, it is a state wide subsidy for your season tickets.
And again, further than a Tulsa/OKC thing... State subsidies for pro teams is a bad concept all around. If a municipality wants a team, an owner thinks they can make money on a team, and fans want to see a team - why can't they pay for it?
To rectify this situation please send my family our $50 share of the NBA subsidy.
Then the state of Louisiana makes Oklahoma look like a cake walk. The New Orleans Saints are a state subsidized team... literally. But they aren't the Louisiana Saints.
The state taxes you all are complaining about are a part of the Quality Jobs act, are they not? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Quality Jobs Act is geared toward a tax rebate for a company for producing quality jobs. Whirlpool applied for the Quality Jobs program when they opened their Tulsa plant in the late 1990s. Other than tax rebates, how else is the state subsidizing the team?
quote:
Originally posted by okcpulse
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1.10 * 15 * 905,000 (Tulsa MSA) = $15,000,000. Isn't that about what OSU Medical Center needs to survive? Bah! Oh well, send it down the turnpike to the NBA.
quote:
Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?
Yes. Tulsans personally write checks to the State year after year. Business send money to the state year after year. A disproportionate share of that money then stays in OKC. For things like moving highways, government jobs, public health care, to support your tourism industry and for professional sports teams.
If you are arguing that each municipality should pay it's own way in the state and reap the rewards of what it is able to produce, I'm certainly game for that. With 65% of the exports of Oklahoma we'd be happy to keep our wealth in the metro area. I believe for every $1 sent to OKC, Tulsa gets back 72 cents while OKC actually draws money from the state (read $1+ back for each kicked in).
So that sounds OK, a ~40% increase in local funding would be just fine with me. If you want to argue that OKC deserves state funding for NBA team because it produces the wealth, then let's make it official. OKC can spend every penny in state funds that it generates, and no more.
Short of that, it is a state wide subsidy for your season tickets.
And again, further than a Tulsa/OKC thing... State subsidies for pro teams is a bad concept all around. If a municipality wants a team, an owner thinks they can make money on a team, and fans want to see a team - why can't they pay for it?
To rectify this situation please send my family our $50 share of the NBA subsidy.
Then the state of Louisiana makes Oklahoma look like a cake walk. The New Orleans Saints are a state subsidized team... literally. But they aren't the Louisiana Saints.
The state taxes you all are complaining about are a part of the Quality Jobs act, are they not? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Quality Jobs Act is geared toward a tax rebate for a company for producing quality jobs. Whirlpool applied for the Quality Jobs program when they opened their Tulsa plant in the late 1990s. Other than tax rebates, how else is the state subsidizing the team?
How many Whirlpool line workers make $millions a year?
I said two years ago the NBA was a bad idea and I'm still saying it, especially more so since they are getting tax breaks. Why do they need it when they pay these players millions of dollars a year? I wouldn't consider the NBA worthy of tax breaks like that since they are an entertainment based industry. I know it's a strange comparison, but it would be like the state giving Night Trips a tax break because they're employing 'exotic dancers'.
I was wondering how long it would be before you chimed in.
The quality jobs act excluded entertainment and provided a 7 year term. It was specifically modified to allow subsidize the NBA in OKC for an extended period of time. Just because you stick something into a bill does not mean it corresponds with the purpose of that bill.
And yes, Whirlpool gets Quality Jobs Program money. They have exhausted their funds because no one amended the bill to double their time and likely did not get $60,000,000:
- $131,000,000 facility they own
- $260,000,000 in annual payroll
- 1,300 jobs
- Vast majority of revenue brought IN to Oklahoma from outside of the state
- Recently added 100 jobs and expanded their plant
- Qualified for quality jobs act
OKC Thunder:
- Owns and pays taxes on no facilities (subsidized facilities)
- $60,000,000 annual payroll, 90% to 18 people
- under 100 jobs
- Majority of revenue from within Oklahoma
- Will not significantly increase employment or property tax base
- Did not qualify for jobs act
Really? You want to compare a major manufacturing plant to subsidizing an NBA team? Do the math on that one.
Other than the $60mil state subsidy by modifying the "quality jobs" act to apply to entertainment franchises with over $30mil in payroll playing professional basketball and extending the period they can collect that subsidy... then no, I am not aware of any other State subsidies yet.
Hoss, my point was to ask cannon_fodder if there were any other state subsidies for the Thunder besides the Quality Jobs Act. I never said I agreed with it. I don't. It wasn't necessary.
My point to mention Whirlpool is that I could easily say that Oklahoma City helped pay for the plant, and the Port of Catoosa, and a large number of Corps of Engineer projects around Tulsa. But I don't.
Corp of Engineers, manufacturing plant... NBA team.
See the difference?
If OKC was getting quality jobs money for a Toyota plant you would not hear this argument. I am not anti OKC. Development down the turnpike is good for our manufacturing base too.
I've listened to several Tulsans in person slam OKC on Tinker's air force maintenance contracts. "There goes more of our money down the pike!" They'd say.
I agree with you on your last post, cannon, but I am basing my posts off of the remarks of other Tulsans and not just those on this board.
I am one of those whiners.
I feel totally screwed by so much of my money going to do things for OKC. I travel to OKC a few times a month, read their newspapers and follow developments. Every time I go, we are meeting in some new state government funded office building or museum and I can get there on a free road.
I deal with regulatory agencies and they all tell me about how much outreach they do, then list off all the Oklahoma city area schools they work in and show me a budget where they had only enough money to stay in town. Every time I need someone, I hear that they closed the Tulsa office and consolidated everybody to be in OKC.
The power in this state is rural first, OKC second, state universities third and Tulsa last.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
People to blame:
67 - Lamons
68 - Benge (SPONSORED THE BILL!!)
71 - Sullivan
77 - Proctor
79 - Watson
23 - Tibbs
and guess what? All the above who voted Yay were rewarded with reelection last month. So, yeah, we apparently like to vote against our own-self interest & then b*tch and moan about it when it happens.
I see some high-profile Oklahoma City area reps. voting Nay on this bill, Kern, Terrill, Wesselhoft...
So yeah, keep blaming the team & the ownership of the team.
Instead of the majority of Tulsa House reps. that voted in favor of (one sponsoring) the bill. SB1819.
Let's not forget, Mayor Taylor was a pretty vocal cheerleader herself...
And OKC had already passed MAPS 3....
Back in 2002 when LaFortune started telling Tulsans that Major League Soccer was really and truly interested in expanding to T-town.... OKC and Brad Lund/Express Sports took some initiative for OKC/Edmond... after the soccer stadium for Vision2025 fell through, I was hoping at the time that OKC could actually land an MLS team, use it as a stepping stone to an NHL team... then Tulsa could get that team by default as an OKC leftover...
So OKC's trying to run with the bigger dogs...? Dallas, San Antonio, Houston... good for them.
Its a different ethic here that I think is illustrated by our choice in arena developments. OKC built an arena that is functional, was cheap to build and non controversial. Simply one part of the puzzle. That allowed them to focus on other parts of the puzzle as well. Sort of like building a Chevy Malibu.
We had to go the champagne route and build an iconic structure that cost a lot, was no more functional and engendered controversy. Other peoples views were steamrollered. That meant fewer large projects, like river development, soccer stadium, light rail etc. We instead spread v2025 funds around like pork at a session of congress. Made a lot of small groups happy, but at the expense of momentum.
We just look so petty, criticizing a more aggressive sister city instead of taking note of what works, and what doesn't. OKC has some built in advantages, always have. But they obviously have a better leadership track record as well. If Tulsa were located in central Oklahoma as the capitol with our last two decades of leadership intact....we would still lag far behind OKC in development. We would have filled in the Canadian River and paved it over. We would have razed the Murrah building area and leased it out as parking. We would have destroyed the warehouse district now known as the Bricktown and replaced it with...parking.
Stop blaming OKC and start paying attention.
edit ps: Save your venom kids. I love Tulsa and am proud of the things we did do right, like saving old innercity neighborhoods. OKC did not do a good job of that. The one thing that will draw tax funds into Tulsa is success at something. That something will come to us soon enough. It may be downtown rebirth or intelligent management of suburban growth. But frankly, until leadership style changes from stuffy, trust fund, patriarchal to more populist, we're dead in the water. Until we resolve the burbs vs downtown argument nothing good happens on either side. None of the rest of the state holds us in as high esteem as we do. And I don't mean governmental leadership. Community leadership.
Good points Waterboy, however... I'm glad we built a top notch arena. We came late to the party in the first place. And why build a structure that will last generations that is less than impressive?
/don't want to open up that can of worms really, just throwing my 2 cents in.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Good points Waterboy, however... I'm glad we built a top notch arena. We came late to the party in the first place. And why build a structure that will last generations that is less than impressive?
/don't want to open up that can of worms really, just throwing my 2 cents in.
We went to the Arena this weekend for the first time to see a hockey game. Wow! At night it is very impressive and gave me a sense of pride that we built such a cool building and took such a risk with its location. Parking was simple. The area was pristine. In the final analysis of the evening though, it was a hockey game and the interior was pretty much like any other public arena. In fact it reminded me a lot of the old Civic Center Arena. So, though I agree with you, I would have had the same experience at any well designed arena. I used the arena as an example of our different outlooks. OKC simply had a different philosophy of development. This isn't the first time that Tulsa went for champagne over beer! That outlook has its costs.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Good points Waterboy, however... I'm glad we built a top notch arena. We came late to the party in the first place. And why build a structure that will last generations that is less than impressive?
/don't want to open up that can of worms really, just throwing my 2 cents in.
We went to the Arena this weekend for the first time to see a hockey game. Wow! At night it is very impressive and gave me a sense of pride that we built such a cool building and took such a risk with its location. Parking was simple. The area was pristine. In the final analysis of the evening though, it was a hockey game and the interior was pretty much like any other public arena. In fact it reminded me a lot of the old Civic Center Arena. So, though I agree with you, I would have had the same experience at any well designed arena. I used the arena as an example of our different outlooks. OKC simply had a different philosophy of development. This isn't the first time that Tulsa went for champagne over beer! That outlook has its costs.
Wow, I could not disagree any more with you on the comparison with the Civic Center aka Maxwell house.
I've held season tickets to the Oilers for about six seasons, and to compare the interior of the Civic Center to this building is apples and oranges. The old CC feels like a dungeon; this building has none of that feel. It's warm and inviting and open.
I'm sure some people would accuse me of being a 'sunshine pumper'. But I've been to the CC enough since 1996 to feel that I can make an honest assessment.
Of course, that's just my asssessment, YMMV.
Water, where did you sit? I sit in section 101 two rows off the glass.
We were up a little higher. Section 110 around "K". Friends gave us tix. Comfortable seats too. !!$9 Margaritas?!!
Loved the game and yes it was warm, inviting and way, way, too loud! After a few minutes we kind of forgot it was "the" Arena. I predict its success as a venue, just think we could have had the same comfort at a reduced price and that's what some cities have done.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
!!$9 Margaritas?!!
That was your problem. Hockey and beer go together, not margaritas.
You probably tried to find sushi or french cheese.
After an Oiler game, I think we should all take some sticks over to the ice rink on the side of the building and recreate some of the action.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
!!$9 Margaritas?!!
That was your problem. Hockey and beer go together, not margaritas.
You probably tried to find sushi or french cheese.
After an Oiler game, I think we should all take some sticks over to the ice rink on the side of the building and recreate some of the action.
The way they've been playing lately, there might be more purse-swinging than stick swinging.
I didn't care that they lost. It was a close game with a shootout to end it. I will go back. On this rink, I could actually follow the puck, see them missing the puck and see their faces squashed up against the glass.
They had beer?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I didn't care that they lost. It was a close game with a shootout to end it. I will go back. On this rink, I could actually follow the puck, see them missing the puck and see their faces squashed up against the glass.
They had beer?
If you come on Tuesdays, the beer is $2 as well as hot dogs.
Thunder is now 3 and 26 according to the sports report tonight. How frigging embarrasing is that. OKC can have the LOSERS. I want my tax money back.
Jo- not unusual for an expansion team, a transplanted team or a team with new ownership to start out with dismal record. St.Louis Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, LA Dodgers, etc. It takes a while to get the right formula. True fans of the sport remain loyal and supportive.
Actually, the NFL franchises complained that their "expansion" teams did too well. The rules had to be adjusted after the Jaguars did well as a new team (and others). But really, this is a transplant team - not an expansion.
There is no real reason for a transplant team to suddenly suck worse than any other team in history. Franchise or otherwise. Look at the records, the transplant teams are not the worst teams (NBA expansions do poorly: Jazz in NO, Magic, Miami... but not transplants). Many hardly skipped a beat. The Lakers, Charlotte, the Jazz... all did just fine.
This could be historic, 9-73 is the worst record ever for an NBA team going to the 76ers in 1972. Mavericks had 11 wins. Clippers had 13 wins. Certainly they could via for the top 10 worst teams all time.
They weren't good before they moved, but now they are really bad. Doesn't really reflect on the city, not like they select the players or coach them. But certainly a winning team helps the imagine of a city subconsciously (two way street?).