http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/houston-scores-high-for-the-nhl.html
While I'm sure this doesn't mean Gary Bettman and others will start luring Tulsa to the NHL, I found this is a little surprising. Of the markets listed in this study, 22 made the 'Sufficient' rating. Tulsa was 21st. Of course, it's basing it on local income. Other factors would have to come in to play I'm sure.
Of course it could...You just need the right corporate sponsorship.....
Quote from: Breadburner on August 20, 2011, 03:49:52 PM
Of course it could...You just need the right corporate sponsorship.....
What was even more surprising is that OKC was listed 47th and denoted as 'insufficient'.
Quote from: Hoss on August 20, 2011, 04:36:00 PM
What was even more surprising is that OKC was listed 47th and denoted as 'insufficient'.
They already have an NBA team to pay for
Quote from: Hoss on August 20, 2011, 04:36:00 PM
What was even more surprising is that OKC was listed 47th and denoted as 'insufficient'.
Because they have the Thunder and the study subtracted income already being spent on professional sports.
Quote from: ZYX on August 20, 2011, 05:17:51 PM
Because they have the Thunder and the study subtracted income already being spent on professional sports.
But the article said that wasn't factored in.
EDIT: my mistake; didn't completely read the paragraph.
Quote from: swake on August 20, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
They already have an NBA team to pay for
Don't you may we're paying for it? As state taxpayers with the breaks they got to come here.
Quote from: Hoss on August 20, 2011, 06:41:54 PM
Don't you may we're paying for it? As state taxpayers with the breaks they got to come here.
Ah yes, the income tax rebate
Tulsa definitely could support the NHL. I have no doubt that if Oklahoma City can support an NBA franchise then Tulsa could support an NHL franchise.
Gary Bettman had his chance in 1997 to add Oklahoma City to the NHL; however, he felt that OKC could not build an NHL ready arena with less than $100 million.
The BOK Center is much more ready to host an NHL franchise than OKC's Chesapeake Energy Arena (aka: Ford Center) was to become home to an NBA franchise.
Tulsa is ready and ripe for one major professional sports franchise! The money is there and you would draw from Oklahoma City and Wichita to support an NHL franchise in Tulsa.
Quote from: Laramie on August 24, 2011, 07:47:29 PM
Tulsa definitely could support the NHL. I have no doubt that if Oklahoma City can support an NBA franchise then Tulsa could support an NHL franchise.
Gary Bettman had his chance in 1997 to add Oklahoma City to the NHL; however, he felt that OKC could not build an NHL ready arena with less than $100 million.
The BOK Center is much more ready to host an NHL franchise than OKC's Chesapeake Energy Arena (aka: Ford Center) was to become home to an NBA franchise.
Tulsa is ready and ripe for one major professional sports franchise! The money is there and you would draw from Oklahoma City and Wichita to support an NHL franchise in Tulsa.
I would love to see an NHL team here but the current economy I think stifles that notion for a while. Anybody with the last name of Lund, Funk or Ross would definitely need to stay out of it.
I think I'd be happier for the time being if we could get an AHL team and bring Wichita in with us to get the triangle back in play. Texas now has Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Why not us?
Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G with Tapatalk
Quote from: Hoss on August 24, 2011, 08:28:23 PM
I would love to see an NHL team here but the current economy I think stifles that notion for a while. Anybody with the last name of Lund, Funk or Ross would definitely need to stay out of it.
I think I'd be happier for the time being if we could get an AHL team and bring Wichita in with us to get the triangle back in play. Texas now has Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Why not us?
Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G with Tapatalk
Tulsa is ready for the major leagues. I kept hearing the same thing about Oklahoma City; many nay-sayers kept thinking small and referring to how we supported our CBA franchise.
Hurricane Katrina dropped the Hornets in our laps and we couldn't believe the support we received from our community.
It is amazing how our skyline is transformating since the NBA relocationed the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoX5.p1VOhhwAiVGJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DOklahoma%2BCity%2BSkyline%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-701%26b%3D31%26tab%3Dorganic&w=1024&h=509&imgurl=farm7.static.flickr.com%2F6053%2F5902608928_27063538c8_b.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyscrapercity.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D594520%26amp%3Bpage%3D14&size=354.7+KB&name=Oklahoma+City+Skyline+-+July+4th%2C+2011+by+sseiyah+%2C+on+Flickr&p=Oklahoma+City+Skyline&oid=ebd4002c4e09b507113f49fc2f2e47a6&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-701&tt=Oklahoma+City+Skyline+-+July+4th%2C+2011+by+sseiyah+%2C+on+Flickr&b=31&ni=30&no=60&tab=organic&sigr=1217bpmn1&sigb=13b31c6lk&sigi=11o1chj3c&.crumb=/lfN.MzJSCF
Tulsa is ready"!
Man, Having an NHL Team in Tulsa would be great! I think that fits our demographic well and I think the city could certainly get behind it.
When the Oilers first came here they were a "major" league team. The old AHA was a competing league with the NHL. And back then the NHL only had a handful of teams.
The old Tulsa Colosseum was always sold out for hockey. I'm not sure what it's seating capacity was.
Tulsa is the 54th largest MSA
Other southern NHL markets are (I'm excluding northern cities since they tend to support hockey better regardless of size)
LA - 2
Dallas - 4
Miami/Ft Lauderdale - 8
San Fransisco/San Jose - 11
Phoenix - 14
St Louis - 18
Tampa/St Petersburg - 19
Columbus - 32
Charlotte - 33
Nashville - 38
Tulsa would be the smallest southern market in the NHL by far. I don't think the NHL is going to expand and any movement I think would go to SA, Houston, or Canada before they would move here.
I do not doubt our city's ability to rally behind a top league professional team. I believe if somehow we did get an NHL team, that they could do well here. I know I would go to 2-3 games a year, but I just don't see it happening.
Quote from: swake on August 25, 2011, 10:56:54 AM
When the Oilers first came here they were a "major" league team. The old AHA was a competing league with the NHL. And back then the NHL only had a handful of teams.
The old Tulsa Colosseum was always sold out for hockey. I'm not sure what it's seating capacity was.
Random....
pipedream.
According to this ranking of 55 cities that don't have NFL teams Tulsa is ranked 21st and has "sufficient" economic capacity for an NFL team.
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/los-angeles-is-the-clear-choice.html?appSession=70878849212654&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=3&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
Quote from: JeffM on August 26, 2011, 01:11:01 PM
pipedream.
Says the soccer fan...don't see MLS soccer here...
These things come out every year or two:
From 2009: http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2009/12/stadium-seating
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/sports/2009/12/04/how-cities-rank-for-potential-sports-expansion
QuoteMajor League Soccer (MLS) has the widest range of potential options. Forty-two open markets have income bases that are large enough to support a professional soccer team. (See the accompanying chart for ratings for all markets in all leagues.)
Other leagues have fewer options. Eighteen markets currently outside the NFL have enough money to maintain a football franchise. The National Basketball Association (NBA) has 17 open markets with sufficient TPI, the National Hockey League (NHL) has 16, and Major League Baseball (MLB) has only two.
Nineteen areas are overextended, with Denver, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Tampa facing the worst problems. The income bases of these overextended markets are inadequate for their existing teams, let alone any new ones.
QuoteThe only sport currently proceeding with expansion is MLS, which is adding franchises in Philadelphia, Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver during the next two seasons. It could easily keep growing, with 42 additional markets having the financial wherewithal to support pro soccer.
The study analyzed TPI data to generate capacity scores for each market in each sport. A score of 100 indicates that an income base is strong enough to support a team, while a reading of between 70 and 99 is a sign of a borderline base that may or may not be adequate.
These ratings were then used to concoct expansion scenarios for MLS and the other four leagues. It identified Montreal and Rochester, New York, for example, as ideal soccer markets, given their substantial income bases and long histories of supporting the game. (See the scenarios sidebar for breakdowns for all five leagues.)
The NFL, NBA, and NHL find themselves in similar situations, respectively having 18, 17, and 16 open markets with adequate income bases. But baseball has virtually nowhere to turn, since the TPI required for an expansion or relocated team in that sport is so high.
Just two markets currently outside of MLB have income bases sufficiently large to join its ranks: Riverside-San Bernardino, California, and Montreal. And the latter is tainted because it lost a baseball franchise, the Expos, to Washington five years ago (the Expos were renamed the Nationals).
Overextension is a serious problem in Denver, which has franchises in all five sports. The Denver metropolitan area could use an additional $92.5 billion in total personal income to provide an adequate base for its existing franchises.
Same ol' same 'ol.... and NHL ain't in any mood to try other "sunbelt" cities anytime soon....
Quote from: JeffM on August 26, 2011, 08:05:46 PM
These things come out every year or two:
From 2009: http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2009/12/stadium-seating
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/sports/2009/12/04/how-cities-rank-for-potential-sports-expansion
Same ol' same 'ol.... and NHL ain't in any mood to try other "sunbelt" cities anytime soon....
People are reading way more into what I posted. Bettman (the NHL commish) has said as much (about not needing to add teams). I was merely posting a report that addressed the financial viability of certain markets to support the NHL. There was, at one time, a movement looking at moving the Penguins, and we were in the running for that, when they were putting the 'new arena' ultimatum to the Steel City. So it does speak to whether or not we could.
Me? I'd rather see the AHL, because the NHL would price me out of regular game attendance like I do now.
Quote from: OwassoPoke on August 25, 2011, 11:10:49 AM
Tulsa is the 54th largest MSA
Other southern NHL markets are (I'm excluding northern cities since they tend to support hockey better regardless of size)
LA - 2
Dallas - 4
Miami/Ft Lauderdale - 8
San Fransisco/San Jose - 11
Phoenix - 14
St Louis - 18
Tampa/St Petersburg - 19
Columbus - 32
Charlotte - 33
Nashville - 38
Tulsa would be the smallest southern market in the NHL by far. I don't think the NHL is going to expand and any movement I think would go to SA, Houston, or Canada before they would move here.
I do not doubt our city's ability to rally behind a top league professional team. I believe if somehow we did get an NHL team, that they could do well here. I know I would go to 2-3 games a year, but I just don't see it happening.
True Tulsa would be the smallest market; however, Tulsa is within 125 miles of Wichita and 90 miles of Oklahoma City and would have more regional support than cities like Nashville, Tampa-St. Petersburg & Phoenix.
Tulsa is a tight-knit community in which the whole town would support its NHL experience. Gary Bettman didn't buy into the fact that in 1997 when Oklahoma City entered the NHL expansion derby that Tulsa would be a supporter of an NHL team in OKC.
Now that Oklahoma City is on very strong footing in the NBA; Bettman just might be willing to revisit the Tulsa-Oklahoma City scenario as one media market.
There are more that 1.3 millions TV households in Tulsa-Oklahoma City combined. That would put us in the top 25 markets in the United States.
Not trying to be a jerk, but did anyone else notice that the TPI (total personal income) data referenced from 2010 shows that OKC has 10 Billion dollars more in personal income than Tulsa?
Surprising.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 12, 2011, 09:51:52 PM
Not trying to be a jerk, but did anyone else notice that the TPI (total personal income) data referenced from 2010 shows that OKC has 10 Billion dollars more in personal income than Tulsa?
Surprising.
Why? Larger population base.
Quote from: Hoss on September 12, 2011, 10:17:28 PM
Why? Larger population base.
That amount measured Per Capita is a little more meaningful measurement.
Tulsa has a total income per capita of $40,904 which ranks 69th of the 366 metro areas. Oklahoma City has a per capita of $39,288 which ranks 99th. Out of the 100 largest metros Tulsa ranks 35th and Oklahoma City ranks 52. When you factor in the low cost of living in Oklahoma these are really good numbers.
The overall average for the more than 258 million people that live in the 366 metro areas is $41,847. The median income for metro areas is $35,737. The average vs median skews so far off because the largest cities have the highest incomes (and highest costs of living). 85 million people live in the 11 largest metro areas and they have an average income of $49,109. But that list includes very high cost of living cities like San Francisco, New York, LA, Washington, Boston and Miami.
National Average is $40,572
National Non-Urban Average $34,033
Tulsa $40,904
Oklahoma Urban Average $39,748
Oklahoma City $39,288
Oklahoma Average $37,155
Oklahoma Rural Average $32,921
It's good to see the numbers and the breakdown per capita. Thanks for posting.
I agree with Hoss. The AHL more closely fits my budget and the competition is a little higher than in the CHL.
I'd be happy if we could just get AHL here and hopefully an ownership group with the will to have a winning team.
I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa. Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything. The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...
Thoughts?
Quote from: JDG78 on September 13, 2011, 09:26:49 PM
I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa. Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything. The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...
Thoughts?
People from OKC area have tax loopholes and spend their $ out of state.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 13, 2011, 09:26:49 PM
I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa. Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything. The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...
Thoughts?
Maybe return to OKCTalk with your findings?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 13, 2011, 09:33:27 PM
People from OKC area have tax loopholes and spend their $ out of state.
Case in point...the HUGE tax breaks to lure the Seattle Super...errr....Thunder to Oklahoma.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 13, 2011, 09:26:49 PM
I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa. Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything. The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...
Thoughts?
What percentage of Oklahoma City's personal income is derived from taxes, ie government employees.
Several years ago, I remember looking into it and it seemed that there are two "donor" cities in Oklahoma that basically pay the taxes to support the rest of the state. That's Tulsa and Oklahoma City. However, it seemed that OKC was able to keep a higher percentage of their tax dollars than Tulsa was able to. I chalk this up to OKC being the state capital and so there seem to be a lot of infrastructure improvements that are felt needed in the capital, and Tulsa has to raise more of it's own dollars in order to support.
Do I believe that Tulsa's streets are in bad shape because of this? No. Tulsa's streets are in bad shape because of politicians that spent money on sexier projects to get re-elected over the years; combined with a citizenry unwilling to pay a little more to keep the streets up. Now the streets are in such bad shape, that the cost is too high for the citizens to afford to fix.
The streets will get worse, because we can only afford to fix the most important streets (the ones around hospitals, and around shopping areas where tax revenues are generated).
Well, I do live in OKC, but lived in Tulsa for 8 years and just recently moved back to OKC. Still have many friends in T-Town and love the city greatly....
Regarding the loopholes... THAT IS PLAIN BULL****....
The thunder tax credit did not cost the state anything....We still received tax revenue that we would have not otherwise had. The state does the same thing for the film industry and nobody seems to be complaining about that.
The state is the largest employer in OKC, however their are several companies worth note that now employ over 5K. Devon,Chesapeeke, American Fidelity, and MFB...
I know regarding streets and highways, that ODOT spends nearly identically in Tulsa and OKC. Some years OKC has a few percent higher in dollars spend and the next Tulsa will be ahead. Over the last 25 years the amount speant is nearly identical...
Regarding infrastructure improvements... All improvents that have been made in OKC over the last 20 years have been done so with self imposed city taxes or Federal funding. Of course, this is omitting street and highway improvements, but as I mentioned above, the spending is nearly equal between OKC and Tulsa from ODOT.
I wasn't trying to start a war or anything. I do love Tulsa, I am just amazed sometimes that whenever I am back in Tulsa or have some friends down from Tulsa, they are always surprised about OKC. They always comment how they have such a negative perception of okc. Then they come here and hang out and they like it. They never hear about the boathouses, the devon tower, Sandridge Campus, the myriad gardens or any of the new development in okc... Conversely, we always tend to get good updates on Tulsa in the OKC media.
I've wanted to kill this thread off... having lived in hockey heaven, Boston, there's no way on Dawgs green earth that this will ever happen here.
There.
Is this conjecture just to pump new product for the Areama? ;)
Quote from: JDG78 on September 14, 2011, 02:32:32 PM
I know regarding streets and highways, that ODOT spends nearly identically in Tulsa and OKC. Some years OKC has a few percent higher in dollars spend and the next Tulsa will be ahead. Over the last 25 years the amount speant is nearly identical...
Untrue. Show us evidence.
Here is this year's difference...
OKC
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cwp-8-year-plan/maps/division4_okc_metro.pdf
Tulsa
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cwp-8-year-plan/maps/division8_tulsa_metro.pdf
More than double.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 14, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Untrue. Show us evidence.
Here is this year's difference...
OKC
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cwp-8-year-plan/maps/division4_okc_metro.pdf
Tulsa
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cwp-8-year-plan/maps/division8_tulsa_metro.pdf
More than double.
Not to mention we have no freestanding 4 year public university compared to three in the Oklahoma City metro. There's all the money spent at OU Health Sciences vs what is spent here. Tulsa's public hospital (which is new) is owned by the city, not the state despite it's name. And that's aside from having nearly all possible state departments based in Oklahoma City (which is not what happens in other state capitals) and the state getting almost all federal facilities located in the Oklahoma City area. Tulsa is the largest city with no free interstate access and one of the largest with out Amtrak.
You also really need to look back into the Thunder tax too. The tax rebate plan that the Thunder received was originally intended to encourage businesses to locate in Oklahoma bringing in new money into the state.
The rebate was not allowed for entertainment businesses that lived off of local spending, it had to be amended to include the Thunder. But the Thunder are supported by local discretionary spending and are do not generate new money into the state economy therefore the spending that generates the revenue for that rebate already existed in the local economy.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 14, 2011, 02:32:32 PM
Well, I do live in OKC, but lived in Tulsa for 8 years and just recently moved back to OKC. Still have many friends in T-Town and love the city greatly....
Regarding the loopholes... THAT IS PLAIN BULL****....
The thunder tax credit did not cost the state anything....We still received tax revenue that we would have not otherwise had. The state does the same thing for the film industry and nobody seems to be complaining about that.
The state is the largest employer in OKC, however their are several companies worth note that now employ over 5K. Devon,Chesapeeke, American Fidelity, and MFB...
I know regarding streets and highways, that ODOT spends nearly identically in Tulsa and OKC. Some years OKC has a few percent higher in dollars spend and the next Tulsa will be ahead. Over the last 25 years the amount speant is nearly identical...
Regarding infrastructure improvements... All improvents that have been made in OKC over the last 20 years have been done so with self imposed city taxes or Federal funding. Of course, this is omitting street and highway improvements, but as I mentioned above, the spending is nearly equal between OKC and Tulsa from ODOT.
I wasn't trying to start a war or anything. I do love Tulsa, I am just amazed sometimes that whenever I am back in Tulsa or have some friends down from Tulsa, they are always surprised about OKC. They always comment how they have such a negative perception of okc. Then they come here and hang out and they like it. They never hear about the boathouses, the devon tower, Sandridge Campus, the myriad gardens or any of the new development in okc... Conversely, we always tend to get good updates on Tulsa in the OKC media.
Not disclosing that you lived there at the outset doesn't bode well for your credibility here in the future.
And, as Swake already pointed out, the tax breaks had to be amended in order for the Thunder to qualify. Tell me that's not the squeaky wheel getting greased....
The ODOT chart is misleading if you compare what was actually completed in OKC vs. Tulsa... If you look at dollar for dollar spending over the last 25 years it is nearly equal. Even with your graph, the OKC spending vs. Tulsa spending is roughly 187million (OKC0 vs . 144m in Tulsa).
The Thunder tax issue is wrong. Each player home or away that plays in OKC is charged Oklahoma state income tax on each check... That is income we would not have otherwise had... We gave them a tax break to relocate. They did not take money from the state coffers and write the Thunder a check to relocate. No money was taken from the general fund....
Hoss -My intent of this post was not to start a war but just to discuss the issues I brought. I have no hate for Tulsa and have posted without being a hater... I read your postings and it is clear you are a hater....
It seems to me that labels are meant to marginalize a person, and discredit their viewpoint.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 14, 2011, 07:55:01 PM... I read your postings and it is clear you are a hater....
Exactly right. I spent enough of my early adulthood in that hole down the pike that I'll never like it. I hated it even before it was cool to hate it.
Quote from: les_stockton on September 14, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
It seems to me that labels are meant to marginalize a person, and discredit their viewpoint.
Les, I care not if he calls me a hater. You know me well; I don't care what other people think of me. If the city of OKC seeks validation, they shouldn't look toward me, or many up here, especially with the way their politics work. Let's keep in mind this is a city that essentially stole the state capitol from another city.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 14, 2011, 07:55:01 PM
The Thunder tax issue is wrong. Each player home or away that plays in OKC is charged Oklahoma state income tax on each check... That is income we would not have otherwise had... We gave them a tax break to relocate. They did not take money from the state coffers and write the Thunder a check to relocate. No money was taken from the general fund....
If the tax break didn't exist for the Thunder, however, they would be paying more in corporate taxes. A tax break doesn't mean money was taken from the general fund, it means that revenue that COULD have been collected wasn't because of the break. Clay Bennett got a sweetheart deal and to somehow infer that he didn't is a fantasy.
Also, how much of that income do you think is spent in Oklahoma, as opposed to say, giving a tax break to a brick and mortar company who decides to employ 5000 or more people in the state? NBA players travel; many have homes that aren't here, many NBA players mock Oklahoma and ask 'who would want to live there?'. I'm betting a lot of that income isn't spent in the state of Oklahoma.
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2011, 08:53:17 PM
If the tax break didn't exist for the Thunder, however, they would be paying more in corporate taxes. A tax break doesn't mean money was taken from the general fund, it means that revenue that COULD have been collected wasn't because of the break. Clay Bennett got a sweetheart deal and to somehow infer that he didn't is a fantasy.
Also, how much of that income do you think is spent in Oklahoma, as opposed to say, giving a tax break to a brick and mortar company who decides to employ 5000 or more people in the state? NBA players travel; many have homes that aren't here, many NBA players mock Oklahoma and ask 'who would want to live there?'. I'm betting a lot of that income isn't spent in the state of Oklahoma.
Yyyeah, keep running in circles with your grudge, Hoss. And to claim that a lot of the NBA player's income isn't spent in Oklahoma is blatantly wrong. Especially since several NBA players have bought homes in OKC, not to mention people I know in OKC have either sold items to or have done custom jobs for the players that live in OKC during the NBA season. Several live in OKC during the off season, with the exception of this year's NBA lockout.
Oklahoma held an election on where to establish the state capitol. OKC won the vote. Guthrie refused to give up the seal, so it had to be retrieved. Are you saying Guthrie should have been the state capitol? And who was the largest city in the state before the capitol moved in 1910? It wasn't Guthrie, and it certainly wasn't Tulsa. You can hate OKC all you want, but eventually you and many other Tulsans will need to come to the realization that both cities have good and bad qualities.
Quote from: okcpulse on September 14, 2011, 09:19:23 PM
Yyyeah, keep running in circles with your grudge, Hoss. And to claim that a lot of the NBA player's income isn't spent in Oklahoma is blatantly wrong. Especially since several NBA players have bought homes in OKC, not to mention people I know in OKC have either sold items to or have done custom jobs for the players that live in OKC during the NBA season. Several live in OKC during the off season, with the exception of this year's NBA lockout.
Oklahoma held an election on where to establish the state capitol. OKC won the vote. Guthrie refused to give up the seal, so it had to be retrieved. Are you saying Guthrie should have been the state capitol? And who was the largest city in the state before the capitol moved in 1910? It wasn't Guthrie, and it certainly wasn't Tulsa. You can hate OKC all you want, but eventually you and many other Tulsans will need to come to the realization that both cities have good and bad qualities.
Figured you'd chime in at some point. Look, my hatred for OKC is well documented and is my own. No one will ever take that from me. It's on par with the hatred that San Francisco and Oakland have with one another and for me it's founded in my experiences in your not-so-fine city.
And since when does a city have to be the largest to be capital? I can think of MANY instances where it isn't (Topeka comes to mind, Carson City in Nevada, etc, etc).
Fact of the matter remains, the tax statute got modified to cater to Clay and the Thunder. That's something that is pure fact.
But continue to defend it. I'll go on airing my opinion of it (and I know I'm not alone), just as many of you down the pike will say you want equality with the two largest cities in the state. I know many could care less.
I'll add the issue of the Heartland Flyer. Tulsa was told that if we voted to help pay for it, we would get train service. Well, after service was brought in to OKC, they said, "oh, that's good enough" and stopped there. We helped pay to get the service, but it was a scam to bring it in for OKC all along and Tulsans were duped into agreeing with it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 14, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Untrue. Show us evidence.
Here is this year's difference...
OKC
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cwp-8-year-plan/maps/division4_okc_metro.pdf
Tulsa
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/cwp-8-year-plan/maps/division8_tulsa_metro.pdf
More than double.
Many of the street improvements made in Oklahoma City were the result of several "bond issues" in which property owners voted in from a period of 1995 through 2008.
You are allowed additional state funding when a community is spending its own money for street and infrastructure projects.
Project 180 in downtown Oklahoma City in which the streets & infrastructure is being completely redone is a result of the tax increments from the new 50-story Devon Energy Tower:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A2KJke03mnJOPGcAu0eJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DDevon%2BTower%2Bconstruction%2Bin%2BOklahoma%2BCity%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26y%3DSearch%26b%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic&w=640&h=360&imgurl=kwtv.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F14701712_BG1.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.news9.com%2Fstory%2F14701712%2Ftouring-devon-tower-oklahomas-tallest-building&size=40.1+KB&name=Devon+Tower%3A+Oklahoma%26%2339%3Bs+Tallest+Building+-+News9.com+-+Oklahoma+City+...&p=Devon+Tower+construction+in+Oklahoma+City&oid=38476f03f8667f424100c3a22ed9ecce&fr2=&fr=&tt=Devon+Tower%3A+Oklahoma%26%2339%3Bs+Tallest+Building+-+News9.com+-+Oklahoma+City+...&b=0&ni=28&no=12&tab=organic&sigr=12imesod1&sigb=13vk6nd1t&sigi=11gmlinhj&.crumb=h6YZzkCcfcA
Oklahoma City's project 180: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AqPfWOAkdU8.dEnpjsMgwNybvZx4?p=Oklahoma+City+Project+180&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-420
Quote from: Laramie on September 15, 2011, 07:29:32 PM
Many of the street improvements made in Oklahoma City were the result of several "bond issues" in which property owners voted in from a period of 1995 through 2008.
You are allowed additional state funding when a community is spending its own money for street and infrastructure projects.
Tulsa passed a 400 million dollar bond issue just for streets. Didn't get Tulsa any more state road money.
I am not bashing OKC. I am bashing a state agency that funds their backyard and rural Oklahoma and not Tulsa.
Hoss-You are trash and I am done... You argue my own point in your response.... either you are retarded or so stupid you can't keep straight which point you are arguing.... Keep on rocking in the free world... TRASH...
Quote from: okcpulse on September 14, 2011, 09:19:23 PM
Yyyeah, keep running in circles with your grudge, Hoss. And to claim that a lot of the NBA player's income isn't spent in Oklahoma is blatantly wrong. Especially since several NBA players have bought homes in OKC, not to mention people I know in OKC have either sold items to or have done custom jobs for the players that live in OKC during the NBA season. Several live in OKC during the off season, with the exception of this year's NBA lockout.
Sure, players buy homes in the cities they play in, and yes, some live in those cities even during the off season. But some also own homes in their home states as well. And yes they pay property tax on the home they own in OKC, and yes they pay the usual utilities, and sales tax when they buy things, but unless they change their residence to OK, other than they games they play in OK they don't pay OK State income tax since they are contract employees. A similar situation happens in AZ every winter when the snowbirds arrive. Many own homes or condos, and pay property taxes etc etc, but since they are temporary residents the pay no income tax. They pay income tax in their state of residence. A lot of sports figures have their permanent state of residency in a state that has no state income tax. A lot of global sports figures have their permanent residency in Monaco because there is no income tax at all.
Quote from: JDG78 on September 15, 2011, 10:34:02 PM
Hoss-You are trash and I am done... You argue my own point in your response.... either you are retarded or so stupid you can't keep straight which point you are arguing.... Keep on rocking in the free world... TRASH...
Nice, can't take my opinion of your beloved OKC so you resort to name calling. I'd expect that from a 10 year old. Does your mommy know you're up late on the internet?
I'll also note that not once have you disputed what I'm saying with any facts to the contrary.
Good bye.
Tell everyone on OKCTalk hello.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 16, 2011, 12:01:36 AM
Sure, players buy homes in the cities they play in, and yes, some live in those cities even during the off season. But some also own homes in their home states as well. And yes they pay property tax on the home they own in OKC, and yes they pay the usual utilities, and sales tax when they buy things, but unless they change their residence to OK, other than they games they play in OK they don't pay OK State income tax since they are contract employees. A similar situation happens in AZ every winter when the snowbirds arrive. Many own homes or condos, and pay property taxes etc etc, but since they are temporary residents the pay no income tax. They pay income tax in their state of residence. A lot of sports figures have their permanent state of residency in a state that has no state income tax. A lot of global sports figures have their permanent residency in Monaco because there is no income tax at all.
You misunderstand the income tax system. States tax income that is earned within their borders; i.e., taxes are paid where the income is earned/"work" is performed. Thus, in the case of professional athletes, they pay income taxes in each state where they perform work/play games. It does not matter where they claim their residence.
The snowbirds are in a different situation. They are being taxed not on wages, salaries and tips, which would be taxed by the state in which the work is performed regardless of residence, but on interest, dividends and other investment income, which are taxed by the state of residence.
The state would be flush.
Quote from: Oil Capital on September 16, 2011, 02:00:37 PM
You misunderstand the income tax system. States tax income that is earned within their borders; i.e., taxes are paid where the income is earned/"work" is performed. Thus, in the case of professional athletes, they pay income taxes in each state where they perform work/play games. It does not matter where they claim their residence.
The snowbirds are in a different situation. They are being taxed not on wages, salaries and tips, which would be taxed by the state in which the work is performed regardless of residence, but on interest, dividends and other investment income, which are taxed by the state of residence.
If you live in OK and work in another state, OK wants income tax unless the state where you work has an equal or higher income tax. I don't remember the details about how much.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 16, 2011, 04:15:51 PM
If you live in OK and work in another state, OK wants income tax unless the state where you work has an equal or higher income tax. I don't remember the details about how much.
I've lived in both and paid income tax in Oklahoma.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 16, 2011, 04:15:51 PM
If you live in OK and work in another state, OK wants income tax unless the state where you work has an equal or higher income tax. I don't remember the details about how much.
That is correct. Good catch. The state where the work is performed gets the first crack at taxing the income; the state of residence gets the "leftovers", if any.
...another bone I have to pick with OKC was back a decade ago when both Tulsa and OKC/Edmond were in the running for an expansion team in Major League Soccer...... Express Sports/Bob Funk/Brad Lund used the proposed taxpayer funds for renovations and expansion of UCO's Wantland Stadium as a centerpiece for their plan... former Mayor LaFortune had the daunting task of proposing either a soccer-specific stadium fully funded by Vision 2025 or a locally financed TIF district in downtown's East Village (East End)... the mayor's office made some lobbying efforts for state STARbonds or an "enterprise zone" but those ideas were DOA at the state capitol... funny dat.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 23, 2011, 10:17:40 AM
...another bone I have to pick with OKC was back a decade ago when both Tulsa and OKC/Edmond were in the running for an expansion team in Major League Soccer...... Express Sports/Bob Funk/Brad Lund used the proposed taxpayer funds for renovations and expansion of UCO's Wantland Stadium as a centerpiece for their plan... former Mayor LaFortune had the daunting task of proposing either a soccer-specific stadium fully funded by Vision 2025 or a locally financed TIF district in downtown's East Village (East End)... the mayor's office made some lobbying efforts for state STARbonds or an "enterprise zone" but those ideas were DOA at the state capitol... funny dat.
Wantland Stadium deal with Funk did not go through! The current renovations had nothing to do with the MLS.
Quote from: Laramie on September 25, 2011, 05:44:45 PM
Wantland Stadium deal with Funk did not go through! The current renovations had nothing to do with the MLS.
Per usual, Laramie, you miss the point.... those proposed UCO renovations were used by Lund/Funk in an attempt to lure MLS to OKC over Tulsa... which also meant any political lobbying efforts in OKC by Tulsa's mayor LaFortune for any state tax credits for a Tulsa area enterprise zone or starbonds were dead in the water.... the state of Missouri passed $30mil in tax breaks for the failed effort to build KC's stadium at the old Bannister Mall.... and the new soccer specific MLS stadium that opened this year in Wynadotte County KS would never have been built without assistance from the state of Kansas who okay'd a pre-existing state tax increment finance zone...
Let me know if anything like that happens in Tulsa, because it'd be the... FIRST. TIME. EVER. :P
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2011, 08:50:23 PM
Les, I care not if he calls me a hater. You know me well; I don't care what other people think of me. If the city of OKC seeks validation, they shouldn't look toward me, or many up here, especially with the way their politics work. Let's keep in mind this is a city that essentially stole the state capitol from another city.
And since you went down that path...the entire existence of the state is based on the theft of the entire state from the people who it was "given" to. The terms "Boomers" and "Sooners" are both redefined from their original derogatory meaning derived from the fact that they were criminals under Federal law. They placed their own 'definition' on the term 'unassigned lands'. Wow! Just occurred to me that it sounds a lot like the RWRE of today! Redefine the term and repeat it enough and it actually starts to mean something. And it took Orwell another 60 years after the land grab to document the concept!
Reference for those who have no sense or knowledge of history;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooners
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 27, 2011, 09:35:57 AM
And since you went down that path...the entire existence of the state is based on the theft of the entire state from the people who it was "given" to. The terms "Boomers" and "Sooners" are both redefined from their original derogatory meaning derived from the fact that they were criminals under Federal law. They placed their own 'definition' on the term 'unassigned lands'. Wow! Just occurred to me that it sounds a lot like the RWRE of today! Redefine the term and repeat it enough and it actually starts to mean something. And it took Orwell another 60 years after the land grab to document the concept!
Reference for those who have no sense or knowledge of history;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooners
My Native American heritage side causes me not to care about Boomer Sooner. I live where I live, in an area of Oklahoma set aside for my tribe anyway. And our native lands were actually stolen from us when we were forced to leave on the Trail of Tears to what is now Oklahoma.
So what. It still boils down to any time there's some advantage to be had, OKC gets it. Tulsa gets left out.
The Indian and tribe talk cracks me up..... ;D
I think there's been a bit of drift from the original topic, which was the article suggesting viability (from an income point of view) of Tulsa being able to support an NHL team. Personally, I would rather be paying AHL prices. I doubt I could afford season tickets for an NHL team, but if someone could convince me that it wouldn't be out of reach, that's another thing all together.
Academically speaking, I think Tulsa (as well as other cities) has the income base to support an NHL team. However, since football is king here, I don't see that seriously happening. Repeating the premise of an AHL team here would be something that I would seriously like to see. Having a rival team so close would be great.
However, as long as we have this CHL franchise, I don't believe any AHL franchise will even bother doing a feasibility study on it.
I hate to rag on the current ownership group all the time. I don't have all the inside information on what they do behind closed doors. However, I feel that hockey has been mediocre for a long time, with exception to the recent Ramsay seasons. I think all of the other teams in the league (past and present) have had more championship runs than this franchise and I have to believe that it has something to do with ownership. I just can't say beyond that.
I think it's cool that the article suggests Tulsa has income to support an NHL team. I hope that will be more than adequate to support an AHL team as soon as we can get some serious changes with our current organization.
I've been to a few hockey games, but the crowds didn't seem to be that big. Would that support NHL?? I'm guessing no unless there was a whole lot of TV income from somewhere.
Quote from: Breadburner on September 27, 2011, 11:54:01 AM
The Indian and tribe talk cracks me up..... ;D
Go sit on it, paleface.
;)
DISCLAIMER: I am 1/16 Native American.
Quote from: Hoss on September 14, 2011, 11:26:40 PM
And since when does a city have to be the largest to be capital? I can think of MANY instances where it isn't (Topeka comes to mind, Carson City in Nevada, etc, etc).
Nnnooo. My point was that OKC didn't need to be the largest city in the state to become the state capitol. Many Tulsans like to argue that OKC is the largest city in the state because it is the state capitol. My point was that the city was already thriving without being the capitol, growing six fold between 1900 and 1910. But okay.