You guessed it. Projections are for it to, once again, turn a profit this year.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20120528_11_A11_TlasBK364783
I'm good with only an operating profit, but how would its finances look if depreciation on the building was taken into account?
What is the appropriate depreciation schedule on an arena? 20 years? $180 million divided by 20 is $9 million a year.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 28, 2012, 12:17:27 PM
What is the appropriate depreciation schedule on an arena? 20 years? $180 million divided by 20 is $9 million a year.
Is depreciation necessarily linear? I thought there were some accelerated depreciation schemes.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 11:46:43 AM
I'm good with only an operating profit, but how would its finances look if depreciation on the building was taken into account?
Thank you for taking the time to dig up posts from 2008 and 2009
(http://www.viralblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dead-horse11.jpg)
Other things that aren't recording a profit:
Roads
Highways
The airport
Buses
Water lines
Storm sewers
retention areas
sidewalks
city hall
streetlights
If you search, you'll see that most publicly funded arenas across the country are either flat, or running in the red.
It amazes me how much people want for this to fail only to be able to tell those who voted for it 'I told you so'...even if at the end of the day, those people who voted for it have been able to say 'we told you so' over the last four years...
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 28, 2012, 01:52:09 PM
Thank you for taking the time to dig up posts from 2008 and 2009
There is this thing, it is called curiosity. You may have heard of it. You'll be relieved to know that I consider the BOk Center worth it for its impact on downtown development as well as attracting more big name acts, which helps to draw in the sort of people we need to repopulate the city's core. It's still valuable to know what the actual cost is.
Same with all the other stuff we do. The real numbers are important, regardless of whether or not you or I think the particular service is something government should be doing.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 28, 2012, 01:52:09 PM
Thank you for taking the time to dig up posts from 2008 and 2009
Other things that aren't recording a profit:
Roads
Highways
The airport
Buses
Water lines
Storm sewers
retention areas
sidewalks
city hall
streetlights
Yes, they do. It is the sum total of economic activity in the state (GDP of the state). If those things weren't there, then dramatically less economic activity.
And while I started out being very skeptical of the arena, since we couldn't even be bothered to keep up the one we already had, it has apparently, from the numbers been very good. I am very happy about that. Let's hope it continues. And that we maintain it better than we did the Civic Center... (I know there has finally been work done on the Civic Center, now that the "sale" of the new one has been made. Way past time.)
And someone really should look into fixing those streaks down the side! May need some different fastening system...at least a clean crashship looks better than a dirty one.
It is still not gorgeous...looks like a crashed space ship. Maybe all the major cities can have one when the alien invasion is thwarted by a bug placed in the mother ship control code!! (Independence Day.)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 28, 2012, 12:17:27 PM
What is the appropriate depreciation schedule on an arena? 20 years? $180 million divided by 20 is $9 million a year.
You must be confused...do municipalities use a depreciation schedule? What for?
Total financial ROI= .00055
Nate, you want more residences downtown, assisted living. I was downtown Saturday morning and it was a ghost town. You'd think someone with an urban land degree would have stimulated the thought away from boozeries. Meanwhile, there's enough churches to build plenty of units for retiring baby boomers.
We need to start discussing opportunity costs which is the other side of the loose-government-expenditure coin.
Quote from: nathanm on May 28, 2012, 03:01:59 PM
There is this thing, it is called curiosity. You may have heard of it.
It killed the cat.
Quote from: Hoss on May 28, 2012, 01:53:27 PM
If you search, you'll see that most publicly funded arenas across the country are either flat, or running in the red.
Presumably, you have done that search. Any chance you could throw us some links, sources, or at least examples?
Here are a couple I was able to find: The Qwest generates about $3.5 million a year in operating profit -
Read more: http://journalstar.com/article_eef1763a-5015-11df-a2eb-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1wEP7rnY2
As a result of Sprint Center's great success in FY09-10, we have exceeded our financial projections allowing AEG to deliver $2.1 million, representing an increase of 16% from last year's payment, to the City of Kansas City, Mo., through a profit-sharing provision in the management agreement,
Read more: http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/sprint-center-celebrates-third-anniversary-by-earning-the-spot-as-america's-second-busiest-arena-#ixzz1wEUvHNAt
I know I'm largely preaching to the choir here, but I honestly can't believe that there is ANY debate about whether or not the BOK Center is a success.
It's a SMASHING success in any way you could measure it.
And it achieved its success largely in the worst economic downturn in 100 years.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 28, 2012, 03:27:34 PM
You must be confused...do municipalities use a depreciation schedule? What for?
Total financial ROI= .00055
Nate, you want more residences downtown, assisted living. I was downtown Saturday morning and it was a ghost town. You'd think someone with an urban land degree would have stimulated the thought away from boozeries. Meanwhile, there's enough churches to build plenty of units for retiring baby boomers.
We need to start discussing opportunity costs which is the other side of the loose-government-expenditure coin.
Tulsa in general is usually a ghost town on Memorial Day weekend. It was like that everywhere.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 09:43:17 AM
Tulsa in general is usually a ghost town on Memorial Day weekend. It was like that everywhere.
Not to mention, what location anywhere is generally "hopping" on a Saturday morning?
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 28, 2012, 11:43:22 PM
Presumably, you have done that search. Any chance you could throw us some links, sources, or at least examples?
Here are a couple I was able to find: The Qwest generates about $3.5 million a year in operating profit -
Read more: http://journalstar.com/article_eef1763a-5015-11df-a2eb-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1wEP7rnY2
As a result of Sprint Center's great success in FY09-10, we have exceeded our financial projections allowing AEG to deliver $2.1 million, representing an increase of 16% from last year's payment, to the City of Kansas City, Mo., through a profit-sharing provision in the management agreement,
Read more: http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/sprint-center-celebrates-third-anniversary-by-earning-the-spot-as-america's-second-busiest-arena-#ixzz1wEUvHNAt
1. The Qwest Center is an Arena AND Convention Center AND Hotel AND also doubles as Creighton's arena. You're comparing Apples and Orchards.
2. The Sprint Number is a gross-profit sharing number and is not directly tied to net profits.
Quote from: Jeff P on May 29, 2012, 10:30:02 AM
Not to mention, what location anywhere is generally "hopping" on a Saturday morning?
Monteraux .... Inverness... Saint Simeons... TJCC
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 29, 2012, 10:52:33 AM
Monteraux .... Inverness... Saint Simeons... TJCC
Ahh, the smell of lysol and oatmeal.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 29, 2012, 10:32:18 AM
1. The Qwest Center is an Arena AND Convention Center AND Hotel AND also doubles as Creighton's arena. You're comparing Apples and Orchards.
2. The Sprint Number is a gross-profit sharing number and is not directly tied to net profits.
Come on, how do you expect an arguement if you try to compare apples to apples.
The Qwest center also receives revenue from parking and received a 2mil subsidy from Omaha (not sure if that was included in the profit calculations)
taking a look at the BOK numbers, they are running a 24-25% profit margin... that is pretty dang good. I would take that all day long and twice on tuesday.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on May 29, 2012, 10:59:18 AM
taking a look at the BOK numbers, they are running a 24-25% profit margin... that is pretty dang good. I would take that all day long and twice on tuesday.
That's great. Could you show how you arrived on that with a net of 1.2 million. Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 29, 2012, 11:18:03 AM
That's great. Could you show how you arrived on that with a net of 1.2 million. Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing from the reported income of ~$5.4MM and expenses of ~$4.3MM reported in the article.
That would be a 25% profit margin.
Quote from: sgrizzle on May 29, 2012, 10:32:18 AM
1. The Qwest Center is an Arena AND Convention Center AND Hotel AND also doubles as Creighton's arena. You're comparing Apples and Orchards.
2. The Sprint Number is a gross-profit sharing number and is not directly tied to net profits.
I realize neither is necessarily a complete line-for-line identical comparison. I doubt one can find such a thing. Nevertheless, they are what I could find and they indicate operating profits for both arenas.
The linked article re: qwest Tells us that the annual city subsidy has ceased.
The sprint center delivers profits to the City of KC that are more of a net profit than the profit Beijing reported for the BOK. It is my understnanding that AEG and the city divide the profit after allocating amounts to items such as returning construction costs.
THERE'S NO DEBT SERVICE. IF THERE WERE, THE BOK WOULD BE RUNNING A DEFICIT! DUH!
Here we go again – the quarterly debate about whether the BOK Center is really "profitable."
Of course it is not "profitable" if it had to service and pay off the debt incurred to build it. No one ever said it would and those opposed to it during the vote never made that argument. Just like school buildings, libraries, parks, roads. golf courses, and other public facilities are not profitable in that they do not generate sufficient revenue to pay for construction or maintenance costs. The hard core naysayer's simply cannot admit they were wrong and the BOK is a success.
The BOK Center has turned an operating profit ever year its been open, has spurred development and private investment all over downtown, has brought top billing concerts and events back to Tulsa, has improved the quality of life in Tulsa, and is a major source of civic pride. Repeating the same tired argument is not curiosity, but is a stubborn refusal to admit the obvious.
Quote from: DTowner on May 30, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
Here we go again – the quarterly debate about whether the BOK Center is really "profitable."
Of course it is not "profitable" if it had to service and pay off the debt incurred to build it. No one ever said it would and those opposed to it during the vote never made that argument. Just like school buildings, libraries, parks, roads. golf courses, and other public facilities are not profitable in that they do not generate sufficient revenue to pay for construction or maintenance costs. The hard core naysayer's simply cannot admit they were wrong and the BOK is a success.
The BOK Center has turned an operating profit ever year its been open, has spurred development and private investment all over downtown, has brought top billing concerts and events back to Tulsa, has improved the quality of life in Tulsa, and is a major source of civic pride. Repeating the same tired argument is not curiosity, but is a stubborn refusal to admit the obvious.
This.
Quote from: DTowner on May 30, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
Here we go again – the quarterly debate about whether the BOK Center is really "profitable."
Of course it is not "profitable" if it had to service and pay off the debt incurred to build it. No one ever said it would and those opposed to it during the vote never made that argument. Just like school buildings, libraries, parks, roads. golf courses, and other public facilities are not profitable in that they do not generate sufficient revenue to pay for construction or maintenance costs. The hard core naysayer's simply cannot admit they were wrong and the BOK is a success.
The BOK Center has turned an operating profit ever year its been open, has spurred development and private investment all over downtown, has brought top billing concerts and events back to Tulsa, has improved the quality of life in Tulsa, and is a major source of civic pride. Repeating the same tired argument is not curiosity, but is a stubborn refusal to admit the obvious.
Someone will demand its birth certificate soon.
Quote from: Townsend on May 30, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
Someone will demand its birth certificate soon.
BOK is short for Barack Obama Kenya
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 30, 2012, 10:01:13 AM
BOK is short for Barack Obama Kenya
Someone contact our state government. We must spend our educational funding to take the Barack Obama Kenya apart and ship it back from whence it came.
Thread ender:
BOK=WIN
Quote from: DTowner on May 30, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
Here we go again – the quarterly debate about whether the BOK Center is really "profitable."
Of course it is not "profitable" if it had to service and pay off the debt incurred to build it. No one ever said it would and those opposed to it during the vote never made that argument. Just like school buildings, libraries, parks, roads. golf courses, and other public facilities are not profitable in that they do not generate sufficient revenue to pay for construction or maintenance costs. The hard core naysayer's simply cannot admit they were wrong and the BOK is a success.
The BOK Center has turned an operating profit ever year its been open, has spurred development and private investment all over downtown, has brought top billing concerts and events back to Tulsa, has improved the quality of life in Tulsa, and is a major source of civic pride. Repeating the same tired argument is not curiosity, but is a stubborn refusal to admit the obvious.
Not sure who you are referring to. I certainly am not arguing over whether the BOK is profitable and I don't see anyone else doing so either. The BOK is certainly operationally profitable. There is no question about that.
What is silly is the fear of examining how the BOK compares to other arenas displayed by so many on this board. I supported the construction of the arena and continue to support it and believe it is a great benefit to the city of Tulsa (even though I think they failed in the site choice). But some of the claims made on its behalf go a bit far and it does no one any harm to have a realistic discussion of its performance and an honest comparison to other arenas.
I still look forward to Hoss sharing his information regarding most publicly supported arenas around the country operating break-even or at a loss.
I found some more information on operating profits of arenas. This is a little old, but still interesting. From a 1992 study http://books.google.com/books?id=52HGfXAUdOAC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=operating+profit+of+publicly+owned+arenas&source=bl&ots=URWxT7btwS&sig=-LBZ7yH1Iz7Ue4fPbCALLOM-PAE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=74LGT8XMK-XL2QXUsaDYAQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=operating%20profit%20of%20publicly%20owned%20arenas&f=false:
Net Operating Income:
LA Sports Arena: $934,000
Meadowlands Arena: $2,541,000
Orlando Arena: $ 128,000
Charlotte Coliseum: $3,362,000
McNichols Arena: - $ 799,000
Miami Arena: - $ 11,000
Omni: $1,130,000
Salt Palace: - $ 639,000
Only 3 out of the 8 arenas in the study had losses.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 30, 2012, 03:41:33 PM
I found some more information on operating profits of arenas. This is a little old, but still interesting. From a 1992 study http://books.google.com/books?id=52HGfXAUdOAC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=operating+profit+of+publicly+owned+arenas&source=bl&ots=URWxT7btwS&sig=-LBZ7yH1Iz7Ue4fPbCALLOM-PAE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=74LGT8XMK-XL2QXUsaDYAQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=operating%20profit%20of%20publicly%20owned%20arenas&f=false:
Net Operating Income:
LA Sports Arena: $934,000
Meadowlands Arena: $2,541,000
Orlando Arena: $ 128,000
Charlotte Coliseum: $3,362,000
McNichols Arena: - $ 799,000
Miami Arena: - $ 11,000
Omni: $1,130,000
Salt Palace: - $ 639,000
Only 3 out of the 8 arenas in the study had losses.
Great...means nothing today....sorry....fail.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 30, 2012, 03:47:04 PM
Great...means nothing today....sorry....fail.
I look forward to your contributions as well. I am posting what I can find. So far, I can find zero support for Hoss's statement that most publicly-funded arenas operate at break-even or a loss.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 30, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
I look forward to your contributions as well. I am posting what I can find. So far, I can find zero support for Hoss's statement that most publicly-funded arenas operate at break-even or a loss.
The discussion was made DURING the initial stages of the campaign for the tax to pay for it. People were complaining about it; the World did a piece on it I believe. That's what stuck in my memory about it.
Me? I'm not going to call every arena in the country to find out if it's true. It may not be standard now, but back then, there sure were a lot of people saying it was. Especially in the NO camp.
But here is someone else in the business, back in 2006, who said this:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-12-10/news/0612090346_1_au-rene-theater-cultural-arts-center-broward-center
"People don't understand that 90 percent of these buildings, whether they are theaters or arenas, operate at a loss,"
Also, it notes the same in someone's Senior Theses I found online:
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=cmc_theses
Obviously, take the last with a grain of salt, but it is a Senior Theses, so hopefully it was sourced.
Quote from: Hoss on May 30, 2012, 04:11:44 PM
The discussion was made DURING the initial stages of the campaign for the tax to pay for it. People were complaining about it; the World did a piece on it I believe. That's what stuck in my memory about it.
Me? I'm not going to call every arena in the country to find out if it's true. It may not be standard now, but back then, there sure were a lot of people saying it was. Especially in the NO camp.
But here is someone else in the business, back in 2006, who said this:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-12-10/news/0612090346_1_au-rene-theater-cultural-arts-center-broward-center
"People don't understand that 90 percent of these buildings, whether they are theaters or arenas, operate at a loss,"
Also, it notes the same in someone's Senior Theses I found online:
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=cmc_theses
Obviously, take the last with a grain of salt, but it is a Senior Theses, so hopefully it was sourced.
So, if I may summarize, you actually have zero direct evidence in support of your statement. The statements made by both the BOK opponents and the gentleman quoted in the Sun-Sentinel article were almost certainly referring to overall costs. Even you are not pretending that the BOK Center is "profitable" on an overall basis (i.e., including construction costs, interest and amortization, are you? (It's amusing that to support your statements now, you are willing to take at face value and repeat as true what arena opponents said in 2003...)
Likewise the Senior Thesis tells us nothing about any individual arenas that I can see in a quick review and is talking about the total costs of arena funding, including both operations and construction.
The only actual research we have on the thread regarding arena operating profits is what I have posted. EVERY arena for which I have been able to find current information is showing an operating profit. (Add to the list the KFC YUM Arena in Louisville). In the 1992 study, 8 out of 11 arenas showed operating profits. In short, Bravo for the BOK showing an operating profit, but it is really no great accomplishment.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 30, 2012, 03:25:13 PM
Not sure who you are referring to. I certainly am not arguing over whether the BOK is profitable and I don't see anyone else doing so either. The BOK is certainly operationally profitable. There is no question about that.
What is silly is the fear of examining how the BOK compares to other arenas displayed by so many on this board. I supported the construction of the arena and continue to support it and believe it is a great benefit to the city of Tulsa (even though I think they failed in the site choice). But some of the claims made on its behalf go a bit far and it does no one any harm to have a realistic discussion of its performance and an honest comparison to other arenas.
I did not compare the BOK to any other arena. Every three months the Tulsa World reports that the BOK Center announced it made a "profit" for the quarter, its gets posted on here and someone immediately turns the discussion to how the "profit" is not really a "profit" because the costs to build it, etc. must be considered to analyze the real return on investment, etc.
In this case, by the second comment this appeared: "I'm good with only an operating profit, but how would its finances look if depreciation on the building was taken into account?" This is a public facility, how does depreciating the cost of the arena relate to whether its revenues exceed its opeating costs and the tax payers are not being asked to subsidize its ongoing operations? That is the point that keeps getting made and someone always wants to change the topic.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 30, 2012, 04:38:30 PM
So, if I may summarize, you actually have zero direct evidence in support of your statement. The statements made by both the BOK opponents and the gentleman quoted in the Sun-Sentinel article were almost certainly referring to overall costs. Even you are not pretending that the BOK Center is "profitable" on an overall basis (i.e., including construction costs, interest and amortization, are you? (It's amusing that to support your statements now, you are willing to take at face value and repeat as true what arena opponents said in 2003...)
Likewise the Senior Thesis tells us nothing about any individual arenas that I can see in a quick review and is talking about the total costs of arena funding, including both operations and construction.
The only actual research we have on the thread regarding arena operating profits is what I have posted. EVERY arena for which I have been able to find current information is showing an operating profit. (Add to the list the KFC YUM Arena in Louisville). In the 1992 study, 8 out of 11 arenas showed operating profits. In short, Bravo for the BOK showing an operating profit, but it is really no great accomplishment.
This wasn't my point, but this article plainly implies the BOK Center's finanical performance has exceeded that of many arenas around the country, but no it does not provide any examples.
Tulsa's BOK Center maintains a profit despite slowdown
BY BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
1/31/2012 6:27:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more BOK Center coverage and concert reviews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BOK Center has generated a $366,769 operating profit during the first half of the fiscal year through December, a figure that is projected to grow to $742,980 by the end of the fiscal year June 30.
Management is thrilled with the arena's financial performance so far in its fourth year of operation, because only a $205,878 profit is budgeted. But the figures are far below the $1.1 million realized in its first year and $1.6 million in years two and three.
The profit decline is a combination of two things, said General Manager John Bolton.
First, the concert industry has been sluggish because of the country's economy, he said. Artists are either staying off the road or, when they do tour, they stick to the major metropolitan areas.
The BOK Center suffered a blow to its March schedule when the Red Hot Chili Peppers was moved to October, Bolton said. There also are no college basketball tournaments this year, as there have been in years past.
"The shows that we have do very well," he said. "If you look at the concert lists of other arenas in similar or even larger markets, you'll see that we're snagging most of those, too.
"But there's still some overall hesitation in the industry. We're slowly starting to see it bounce back. Rock acts tend to only go out in the best of times, and we're getting more of that."
Second, each venue traditionally has a honeymoon period with elevated profit levels, and the BOK Center's has been longer than most, Bolton said.
Most arenas in the United States envy the profit margins seen in Tulsa, he said.
"It's frankly a very strong number," said BOK Center Finance Director Tom Simpson. "Really, anything on the positive side is a good number for an arena."
The BOK Center still routinely collects honors and top rankings based on its ticket sales, customer service and operation, Bolton said.
Just last weekend, the arena was nominated for the third consecutive time as the arena of the year by Pollstar, the industry's publication.
"We value each and every award and nomination we get because it means ticket buyers and our industry customers are having good experiences in Tulsa and will come back," Bolton said.
The $366,769 profit generated from July 1 to Dec. 31 is based on the center's $2,886,214 in expenses being offset by $3,252,983 in revenue, financial reports show.
All of the venue's profit at the end of the fiscal year will be placed into a reserve fund to help pay for any major maintenance needs. The fund has a balance of about $3 million.
The arena also has turned over a total of $835,520 in sales-tax revenue during the first half of the fiscal year to the city, county and state based on their shares of the 8.157-cent sales tax rate.
The sales taxes came from the facility netting $9,937,153 in sales of tickets, T-shirts, concessions and other items.
The BOK Center, which held its first ticketed event in September 2008, was funded with $178 million from the Tulsa County Vision 2025 initiative and about $12 million from sponsorships.
Quote from: DTowner on May 30, 2012, 04:58:24 PM
the BOK Center's finanical performance has exceeded that of many arenas around the country
That's fantastic. What are we actually paying, then? $10 million a year? $20 million? $5 million? I'm not quite sure why the question is so distressing to you.
Quote from: DTowner on May 30, 2012, 04:58:24 PM
This wasn't my point, but this article plainly implies the BOK Center's finanical performance has exceeded that of many arenas around the country, but no it does not provide any examples.
Tulsa's BOK Center maintains a profit despite slowdown
BY BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
1/31/2012 6:27:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more BOK Center coverage and concert reviews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BOK Center has generated a $366,769 operating profit during the first half of the fiscal year through December, a figure that is projected to grow to $742,980 by the end of the fiscal year June 30.
Management is thrilled with the arena's financial performance so far in its fourth year of operation, because only a $205,878 profit is budgeted. But the figures are far below the $1.1 million realized in its first year and $1.6 million in years two and three.
The profit decline is a combination of two things, said General Manager John Bolton.
First, the concert industry has been sluggish because of the country's economy, he said. Artists are either staying off the road or, when they do tour, they stick to the major metropolitan areas.
The BOK Center suffered a blow to its March schedule when the Red Hot Chili Peppers was moved to October, Bolton said. There also are no college basketball tournaments this year, as there have been in years past.
"The shows that we have do very well," he said. "If you look at the concert lists of other arenas in similar or even larger markets, you'll see that we're snagging most of those, too.
"But there's still some overall hesitation in the industry. We're slowly starting to see it bounce back. Rock acts tend to only go out in the best of times, and we're getting more of that."
Second, each venue traditionally has a honeymoon period with elevated profit levels, and the BOK Center's has been longer than most, Bolton said.
Most arenas in the United States envy the profit margins seen in Tulsa, he said.
"It's frankly a very strong number," said BOK Center Finance Director Tom Simpson. "Really, anything on the positive side is a good number for an arena."
The BOK Center still routinely collects honors and top rankings based on its ticket sales, customer service and operation, Bolton said.
Just last weekend, the arena was nominated for the third consecutive time as the arena of the year by Pollstar, the industry's publication.
"We value each and every award and nomination we get because it means ticket buyers and our industry customers are having good experiences in Tulsa and will come back," Bolton said.
The $366,769 profit generated from July 1 to Dec. 31 is based on the center's $2,886,214 in expenses being offset by $3,252,983 in revenue, financial reports show.
All of the venue's profit at the end of the fiscal year will be placed into a reserve fund to help pay for any major maintenance needs. The fund has a balance of about $3 million.
The arena also has turned over a total of $835,520 in sales-tax revenue during the first half of the fiscal year to the city, county and state based on their shares of the 8.157-cent sales tax rate.
The sales taxes came from the facility netting $9,937,153 in sales of tickets, T-shirts, concessions and other items.
The BOK Center, which held its first ticketed event in September 2008, was funded with $178 million from the Tulsa County Vision 2025 initiative and about $12 million from sponsorships.
So if John Bolton (manager at the arena) says that anything in the black is a good thing for arena, I will defer to his knowledge of the industry and say that it's not the norm for arenas to operate in the black.
There you have it.
So, since we are talking about an entertainment venue....
Doc Watson died yesterday. Got to listen to a little of his music again this morning on NPR. I had forgotten...will revisit!!
Even if one is not religious, this remains one of the most beautiful songs ever written. I have never heard a bad version of it, and the only complaint is that ya don't get to hear some of Doc's geetar or banjo with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUDwAgApoQw&feature=related
But you do here - and no, Doc didn't write it, but neither did Eric Burden (The Animals);
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeiXnyvo0d4&feature=related
This whole thing has shown just how wonderful the internet is!!! Wandering down the paths of Texas Alexander and Leadbelly! What a wonderful world we live in today!!! All these old histories right at my fingertips. Or the mouse tips....
Quote from: DTowner on May 30, 2012, 04:58:24 PM
This wasn't my point, but this article plainly implies the BOK Center's finanical performance has exceeded that of many arenas around the country, but no it does not provide any examples.
That article of course gives us zero information about the operating results of any other arenas. It is nothing but unsupported management puffery.
Quote from: Hoss on May 30, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
So if John Bolton (manager at the arena) says that anything in the black is a good thing for arena, I will defer to his knowledge of the industry and say that it's not the norm for arenas to operate in the black.
There you have it.
LOL. Do we really need John Bolton to tell us that operating in the black is a good thing? And of curse he did not say that it is not the norm for arenas to operate in the black.
The BOK is successful. It's obviously a good thing that it shows an operating profit. Credibility is lost when more is attempted to be claimed than is realistic. And so far we have seen zero evidence to support the claim that most arenas do not have operating profits.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 31, 2012, 10:04:57 AM
LOL. Do we really need John Bolton to tell us that operating in the black is a good thing?
Eh, what makes you think we need you to tell us your opinion?
Quote from: Townsend on May 31, 2012, 10:09:24 AM
Eh, what makes you think we need you to tell us your opinion?
That's a rather odd comment on a public forum that is all about sharing fact and opinion. (and for what it's worth the vast majority of my posts are facts, not opinions.)
Just out of curiosity (this is by no means a bash on the BOK Center), what exactly are we talking about when we say they have an operating profit? Whose profit? What are the expenses?
On that note, what revenues does the city recognize from the arena outside of sales taxes? Do they have a lease with the operator, or is it rent per event type of thing? Are there any other fees they collect.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 31, 2012, 10:04:57 AM
LOL. Do we really need John Bolton to tell us that operating in the black is a good thing? And of curse he did not say that it is not the norm for arenas to operate in the black.
The BOK is successful. It's obviously a good thing that it shows an operating profit. Credibility is lost when more is attempted to be claimed than is realistic. And so far we have seen zero evidence to support the claim that most arenas do not have operating profits.
Then you can keep your opinion and I'll keep mine. I however will defer to the judgement of someone in the industry, as I have said. Shouldn't diminish the accomplish either way. If it's making a profit, then why is it such a newsmaker then? Ask yourself that.
Quote from: Hoss on May 31, 2012, 11:17:27 AM
Then you can keep your opinion and I'll keep mine. I however will defer to the judgement of someone in the industry, as I have said. Shouldn't diminish the accomplish either way. If it's making a profit, then why is it such a newsmaker then? Ask yourself that.
Because when taxes sunset, the city needs you to understand that they know what they are talking about and make good decisions. They need to keep reminding you, just so you don't forget.
Quote from: erfalf on May 31, 2012, 11:22:03 AM
Because when taxes sunset, the city needs you to understand that they know what they are talking about and make good decisions. They need to keep reminding you, just so you don't forget.
But John Bolton doesn't work for the city. He works for SMG.
Quote from: Hoss on May 31, 2012, 12:52:09 PM
But John Bolton doesn't work for the city. He works for SMG.
Repeat customer.
Quote from: erfalf on May 31, 2012, 01:00:31 PM
Repeat customer.
OK, you and Shadows been hanging out?
Quote from: Hoss on May 31, 2012, 11:17:27 AM
Then you can keep your opinion and I'll keep mine. I however will defer to the judgement of someone in the industry, as I have said. Shouldn't diminish the accomplish either way. If it's making a profit, then why is it such a newsmaker then? Ask yourself that.
You are too funny. You are deferring to the judgment of someone in the industry who has made no statement one way or the other regarding other arenas and their operating profits. IF he makes a "judgment" on the topic and shares it with us, then it might make some sense to defer to his judgment. In the meantime, you just look silly. (Further, he is hardly an impartial observer.)
The BOK center management issuing a press release touting their own performance and the Tulsa Whirled dutifully printing same is hardly noteworthy or meaningful.
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 31, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
You are too funny. You are deferring to the judgment of someone in the industry who has made no statement one way or the other regarding other arenas and their operating profits. IF he makes a "judgment" and shares it with us, then it might make some sense to defer to his judgment. In the meantime, you just look silly.
The BOK center management issuing a press release touting their own performance and the Tulsa Whirled dutifully printing same is hardly noteworthy or meaningful.
Quote"It's frankly a very strong number," said BOK Center Finance Director Tom Simpson. "Really, anything on the positive side is a good number for an arena."
OK, so I misquoted WHO it was. He does report to Bolton, however. I fail to see how that makes me look silly. On the contrary...
We can go on and on with this..bottom line is, the arena is making money when their staff indicates that anything on the positive side is a good number. You can infer from that what YOU will..I infer that it means that it's not uncommon for arenas to operate flat or at a loss.
Quote from: Hoss on May 31, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
OK, so I misquoted WHO it was. He does report to Bolton, however. I fail to see how that makes me look silly. On the contrary...
We can go on and on with this..bottom line is, the arena is making money when their staff indicates that anything on the positive side is a good number. You can infer from that what YOU will..I infer that it means that it's not uncommon for arenas to operate flat or at a loss.
It makes you look silly because he is anything but a disinterested observer.
I have no doubt you will continue to infer whatever suits your theme of the day, despite the lack of any supporting evidence and the presence of contrary evidence.
(And by the way, I am inferring nothing from the statements of the BOK management.)
Can you two stop already?
Profit, it's not falling down already from neglect, we get great shows, it generates sales tax revenue as a tourist destination when others travel here who might not otherwise be spending their dough in Tulsa. That's a net positive any way you spin it.
Perhaps this will help give a little background about some troubled arenas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/sports/a-companys-small-town-arenas-leave-cities-with-big-problems.html?_r=1
Quote from: DTowner on May 31, 2012, 02:08:41 PM
Perhaps this will help give a little background about some troubled arenas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/sports/a-companys-small-town-arenas-leave-cities-with-big-problems.html?_r=1
Sounds like those cities got slicked.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 31, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
Sounds like those cities got slicked.
Global is huge in the CHL. They have a terrible reputation for this unfortunately. Almost all of the current teams in the league (Tulsa, Wichita, and the former IHL2 teams excluded) used GEC to help their home community get an arena off the ground.
In Rio Rancho's case, they were the relocation for a team who had a good location in the Albuquerque Fairgrounds area. Tingley Colisuem was an interesting building, but had character. The location they chose for the new building at the time was out in the middle of nowhere and they were using it to try and attract other business. Unfortunately, it was put out in an area where there was little infrastructure during a recession.
Hell, GEC even built a building in, of all places, Dodge City KS.
Quote from: DTowner on May 31, 2012, 02:08:41 PM
Perhaps this will help give a little background about some troubled arenas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/sports/a-companys-small-town-arenas-leave-cities-with-big-problems.html?_r=1
Thank you for the effort to actually post comparative facts. Interesting article. It doesn't really discuss operating costs. It's a little hard to tell if any of those arenas even cover their operating costs. In any event, they are quite different circumstances from Tulsa and the BOK. Conan is right. It sounds like those cities got slicked. I'm thinking they deferred a bit too much to "someone in the industry". ;-)
Quote from: Oil Capital on May 31, 2012, 03:24:59 PM
It sounds like those cities got slicked.
It happens every day. Usually the recipient of millions of dollars in subsidies is a private company, not a publicly owned arena. On that basis, I'd say the BOk Center is a bargain whatever the cost, since we're giving money to ourselves. (I'd still like to know what the flow of funds looks like, though)
TW FB post:
The BOK Center is ranked No. 13 in the United States and 36th globally for arena venue ticket sales, according to third-quarter reports from Pollstar industry magazine.
Quote from: Townsend on October 09, 2012, 02:11:50 PM
TW FB post:
The BOK Center is ranked No. 13 in the United States and 36th globally for arena venue ticket sales, according to third-quarter reports from Pollstar industry magazine.
In other words a complete bust.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/029/364/failboat2.jpg?1318992465)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2012, 02:29:14 PM
In other words a complete bust.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/029/364/failboat2.jpg?1318992465)
You just triggered the wrath of OC!
Quote from: Conan71 on October 09, 2012, 02:29:14 PM
In other words a complete bust.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/029/364/failboat2.jpg?1318992465)
No... not Failboat... it's CrashShip!
Like a crashed alien spaceship... Come on, people!!
That boat doesn't even look anything at all like the BOK center!
I admit that I was originally anti-arena, but now I am a fan and I think it has benefitted Tulsa.
How long has the BOK offered Sushi?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7325/11086467136_c2f168c750_z.jpg)
I think since it opened.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on November 27, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
I think since it opened.
I think he's making a funny, Charlie...
Quote from: Hoss on November 27, 2013, 10:43:53 AM
I think he's making a funny, Charlie...
The sushi bar in the last stall has been open since it opened. I just thought everybody knew.
Invite only though.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on November 27, 2013, 11:04:19 AM
The sushi bar in the last stall has been open since it opened. I just thought everybody knew.
Invite only though.
Password is two short knocks, pause, then three quick knocks.