Well, I'd love to say this caught me by surprise, but from day one I have held out that the $150,000,000 they extorted from Oklahoma City tax payers would not be enough. The "Quality Jobs Act" is being amended to specifically include the Hornets on the benefits list to the tune of about $60,000,000.00 of tax payer money.
ENGROSSED HOUSE AMENDMENT
TO
ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 1819 By: Coffee and Morgan of the Senate and Benge of the House
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/HB/SB1819_HASB.RTF
Step 1) We have to move the team from Seattle because the facilities and support is not there!
2) OKC, give us $150,000,000 for better facilities.
3) Oklahoma City can support a team, plus with Tulsa we are a fairly large market and will do well! Grant us rights to move the team.
4) Oklahoma City is too small of a market to be profitable, we need incentives to bring pro sports to Oklahoma.
I call BS. All over the place. The quality jobs program was not create to use tax payer money to subsidize paychecks for millionaires on behalf of owner billionaires. In fact, it doesn't even allow this use - so they are amending it so they can...
THE WORST PART IS, the way they are amending it basically eliminates the possibility that Joe Public would ever figure it out:
Amend SB 1819 - The quality jobs act define "basic industry" to include:
quote:
(12) those activities defined or classified in the NAICS Manual under U.S. Industry No. 711211 (2007 version),
711211 is Pro Sports Franchises (//%22http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND711211.HTM%22), which of course would ONLY apply to the Hornets. Basically, they are getting a subsidy added specifically for them written in to law.
Not only do they get language adding them to the list of "basic industry" that allows them to get credit for job creation, but they get to redefine how much they qualify for... and this provision also ONLY applies to them:
quote:
...provided, with respect to an establishment defined or classified in the NAICS Manual under U.S. Industry No. 711211 (2007 version), the term "gross payroll" shall include the entire amount of wages paid by the establishment to its employees in new direct jobs regardless of whether Oklahoma income tax is or will be due on such wages;
The team gets credit for payroll taxes paid to other states or not paid at all. If the NBA star has a 6 month residence in Dallas and does not claim residence in Oklahoma, he does not pay Oklahoma income tax. But the team gets credit for all payroll, whether or not Oklahoma taxes are paid on it.
This is a specific law drafted to give $4,000,000 a year to one company to create 170 jobs that may or may not pay any tax in Oklahoma. Do the math, the State would be paying $23,530 PER YEAR per job. How much do we pay per job to other employers under the program and did we exempt them from having to actual pay Oklahoma taxes too?
Scrap this deal. If we have an extra $4,000,000 a year to throw away lets hire 90 new teachers, 60 new police officers, commission some artwork, or god forbid fix a bridge or two each year.
- - -
Oklahoma City can have their NBA team, but Tulsa doesn't need to subsidize Oklahoma City more than we already do.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/04/14/bc.bkn.supersonics.quality.ap/
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_105134928.html?keyword=topstory
The Hornets aren't moving to OKC. It's the Sonics.
Does "Pro Sports Franchises" not apply to minor league teams such as the Drillers, Oilers, etc?
Oklahoma House and Senate are getting close to giving away $100 million dollars without need. I have detailed votes, documents, etc about all this at www.reverserobinhood.com
Screw all that, NE Oklahoma needs to secede from the state ;)
Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah
quote:
Originally posted by Curmudgeon
The Hornets aren't moving to OKC. It's the Sonics.
Does "Pro Sports Franchises" not apply to minor league teams such as the Drillers, Oilers, etc?
It does in regards to the sales tax exemption so I would assume so, yeah.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Screw all that, NE Oklahoma needs to secede from the state ;)
True dat.
Seems like its just a matter of scale. This forum is gung ho to consider subsidizing the Drillers just so they don't go to Jenks. Well, in OKC they think bigger.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Seems like its just a matter of scale. This forum is gung ho to consider subsidizing the Drillers just so they don't go to Jenks. Well, in OKC they think bigger.
? please elaborate
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Screw all that, NE Oklahoma needs to secede from the state ;)
True dat.
count me in. Was there not talk of this back in the 80s? or have I been on the sauce to long now?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Seems like its just a matter of scale. This forum is gung ho to consider subsidizing the Drillers just so they don't go to Jenks. Well, in OKC they think bigger.
And use money from the rest of the state.
I should hope they plan on playing a couple of games per season at the BOK. If they want to count Tulsa as part of the market and have us subsidize the team, they should play here too. I guarantee those games will sell out.
You ain't $hit unless you have pro sports.....Good for Okc and I hate pro-basketball for the most part....
No, it does not apply to the Drillers or other franchises. It is tailored to only apply to a new Franchise with significant payroll employing a certain number of people - aka, a new NBA team in OKC.
1) I don't care if it's the Hornets, the Sonics, or the Turds moving to OKC... the point stands.
2) As stated above, NO, it does not apply to other franchises because they are not defined as "quality jobs" nor new. Just the new NBA team.
3) Waterboy:
Oklahoma City can subsidize a team for Oklahoma City all they want... just as Tulsa can subsidize the Drillers if we wanted. But Tulsa is not asking OKC to chip in towards $4 million a year for our entertainment.
For that matter, the discussion is on an ancillary subsidy on the facility... not payroll. The facility could be used for something else and rent would be collected.
I'd be complaining just as loudly if we were going to cover the Driller's payroll for George Kaiser to help ensure him profits.4)
quote:
You ain't $hit unless you have pro sports.....Good for Okc and I hate pro-basketball for the most part....
Cool, so now the state is in the business of making sure we are the sh!t. $4mil a year for the NBA, what? $6mil a year to get an MLB team in Tulsa, better get some kind of pro sports team in the Western part of the state... it would need a bigger subsidy but $10mil a year for pro soccer in Altus seems like it would make us even cooler.
$4,000,000 a year could help make Oklahoma the sh!t by subsidizing education (full ride scholarships to 500 Oklahoman's to any State School), fixing bridges, or any number of things.
- - -
It boils down to this:
Why should the State of Oklahoma be in the business of subsidizing the salaries of millionaires in order to passively entertain a small percentage of the population and help gaurantee profits for a couple billionaire business owners?$4,000,000 a year basically boils down to $1,350,000 a year from the Tulsa area to fund the payroll of a sports team. What of our city departments, charities, parks, or other necessary items doesn't need that Million + dollars such that we can go ahead and give it away to some guys who are really good at bouncing a ball?
I don't get it. Yay, Oklahoma City is big time so by extension Tulsa is kinda-sorta-close to a city that is big time. We rock!
The old joke about the prostitute applies here. Man offers woman $20 bucks for private services. Woman replies, "What do you think I am? A common street whore?" Man replies, "We're not talking profession here. We're negotiating price."
We're asking Tulsan's of all stripes, whether they go downtown to watch sports or not, to help defray the cost of building and operating a sports stadium for private owners who are entertaining offers from another city to do the same. We're in the same "profession" just not as aggressive.
I agree to some extent we are. BUT, the differences are larger than you are allowing in the discussion. We are not covering payroll. We are not dictating people in Oklahoma city kick in $1+ Million a year. And the subsidy stands to have other benefits to the immediate community.
Then we have the scale. The Drillers are not a Billion dollar industry that stand to make tens of millions a year. They do not employ people with million dollar salaries. It does not cost hundreds of dollars to take your family to a drillers game. An NBA team would be among the richest companies in the state owned by the smallest group and employing the fewest people of any company approaching that size. Yet they march in and stick their hand out.
Furthermore, the way in which the subsidy is being discussed is totally different.
Tulsa is having an open discussion about the possibility and may have a vote if tax funding is used. To fund the NBA they inserted an amendment into an engrossed economic development bill references an industry code and held a vote as quickly as allowable. They tried to shove this through as quietly as possible.
That alone is enough to piss me off.
And your argument is semantics. Are you saying we should fund all entertainment businesses throughout the state because Tulsa might subsidize the Drillers facilities? Are you arguing the State should pick up the Drillers entire payroll (less than $4mil as year)?
I understand your point, but feel there are enough differences to make it just an interesting side discussion. Why should Oklahoma and Tulans specifically help cover the NBA's payroll?
I don't care if OKC gets a team or not. It will have very little effect on my life. But I shouldn't have to fund it.
a) There's a difference between subsidizing the construction of a sports venue and subsidizing the operation of a sports franchise. One is part of the public infrastructure and is owned by the city. The other is a private enterprise benefitting from a public handout.
b) It's not at all clear that Tulsans will be subsidizing Drillers Stadium. What appears more likely, given the squeaks and rumors drifting about, is that new developments planned around the stadium will pay for that construction through some sort of TIF package.
c) Even if there were going to be a tax increase for Tulsa, it's not like asking for a county-wide subsidy just for the stadium. The municipality of OKC, which is usually perfectly happy to let Tulsa fend for itself, has now come calling when it needs help for what can truly be considered a luxury product.
Nobody here is angry that OKC is subsidizing its own pet projects. That is every city's right to decide. What folks are angry about is that OKC is asking the rest of the state to do so. Seriously, I think Tulsa lawmakers should have insisted on a pledge of a certain number of games being played in Tulsa, and for that matter exhibitions in Norman and Stillwater, or no go.
And I'll be royally pissed if the team ends up being the OKC Sonics (or whatever) rather than the Oklahoma Sonics.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
$4,000,000 a year basically boils down to......
Bob Stoops' annual salary.
According to their official reporting, Oklahoma football brought in revenue of:
$37,263,255
and spent:
$18,790,701
for a net gain of $18,472,554. If the NBA was going to make a net gain to an entity funded by the State of Oklahoma of $18.5 million - I'd be happy to give them their $4mil a year.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/search.asp
As it stands, any profit made off the $4mil subsidy will go to the pockets of the owners. NOT any entity affiliated nor funded by the State of Oklahoma.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
$4,000,000 a year basically boils down to......
Bob Stoops' annual salary.
Which is paid by the OU Athletic Dept which is self-sufficient meaning public funds aren't used to pay for it, only those generated by the athletic department and donations to the athletic department.
Twziller:
1) The "student athletes" do not work for free. They get for free each year what I had to pay $40,000 a year for. That is tuition and on campus room and board for 9 months. They also get exposure to what many think will be their "real job" in addition to their free tutors, trainers, etc.
Not to mention, that is irrelevant to this discussion. Financially, the $4mil paid to Stoops makes money for the State (one of its entities). But if you would like to further discuss the inequities in college athletics I'd be happy to do so in another thread.
2) Per the taxes:
quote:
...provided, with respect to an establishment defined or classified in the NAICS Manual under U.S. Industry No. 711211 (2007 version), the term "gross payroll" shall include the entire amount of wages paid by the establishment to its employees in new direct jobs regardless of whether Oklahoma income tax is or will be due on such wages;
By law they get a rebate on wages EVEN IF the money is not subject to Oklahoma tax. Why have this provision if they intend to have all income from the team taxable in Oklahoma?
FURTHERMORE, even if it turns out to be a "wash" that is still a $4mil subsidy. Without the subsidy we come out $4mil ahead. No matter how you phrase it, we are giving up $4mil a year.
You are operating on the false assumption that the team needs our $4mil to move to Oklahoma. They have burned their bridge in Seattle and received preliminary approval to move - with or without the charity of Oklahoma tax payers.
Does Oklahoma exist to bennefit the NBA?
These are state tax dollars that exist today in Oklahoma. There is a set amount of discretionary income that residents of the state of Oklahoma have to spend on entertainment in this state. That money that today goes to pay for movies or a dinner at a nice restaurant will now go in part to pay NBA salaries. Today that discretionary money does generate income tax and sales taxes that feed the state and local governments but with this bill tomorrow it will not. That loss in state income will have to be made up, and made up by the rest of us, and not just by residents of Oklahoma City. And most of us do not own NBA teams.
The Hornets got the rule changed where there is no sales tax on the sale of a professional sport ticket so that cut out a large part of the local tax revenue that should be generated and now the Sonics want the income tax back, and not to help build an arena or something of value, just to feed the bottom line of the team.
Why do the Sonics need this kickback on income tax when the Hornets were very successful without it? Is there some state requirement that we take care of the Gaylord family?
This is a direct hit to local and state tax revenue, and it's only for greed. And the entire state is going to have to pay for it. Even after the giveaway to the Sonics the state is going to have to find money for that $700 million big dig highway relocation in downtown Oklahoma City and the American Indian Center in downtown Oklahoma City. The state is going to either get more money for these projects from all of us, or they are just going to delay another Tulsa highway project or cut another Tulsa program.
Aren't we now effectively 'stockholders' in this outfit? Seems we should get voting rights to corporate action, and dividends when a profit is made.
I'm willing to sell my $20 interest in NBA to highest bidder.
Thats one way to get Tulsans to tax themselves just like OKC folks do (joined below the hip with this one)[:D]
Isn't that what everyone here wanted anyway??
OKC mayor Mick Cornett effectively extends the middle finger to the rest of the state:http://newsok.com/article/3232124
quote:
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett was fairly stern about his feelings on the subject, too: ""It will be the Oklahoma City whatevers. It will be Oklahoma City. I care much less about the second half of the name. I'll let other people determine the nickname of the team, but it will be Oklahoma City."
Any chance the state Senate could hold up the $60 million the rest of the state is handing over? This is complete and utter horsesh!t.
I listen in the mornings to three sports programs, Colin Cowherd am 1300, the locals on am1550 and the blowhard on 1430. Some interesting remarks from their guests and callers. No one is upset like Tulsans are. They seem to think that OKC has earned the team, is willing to struggle to pay for the team and will be successful as a major league city. Of course, its not their money!
I am happy for them that they may get the team but they shouldn't spend our jobs money without at least asking nicely. Talk about screwed without a kiss.[8D]
They can have their team--I'm ecstatic that it looks like it's going to be successful.
It's just petty, though, to blow off David Stern's suggestion and the rest of the state so bluntly.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
These are state tax dollars that exist today in Oklahoma. There is a set amount of discretionary income that residents of the state of Oklahoma have to spend on entertainment in this state. That money that today goes to pay for movies or a dinner at a nice restaurant will now go in part to pay NBA salaries. Today that discretionary money does generate income tax and sales taxes that feed the state and local governments but with this bill tomorrow it will not. That loss in state income will have to be made up, and made up by the rest of us, and not just by residents of Oklahoma City. And most of us do not own NBA teams.
The Hornets got the rule changed where there is no sales tax on the sale of a professional sport ticket so that cut out a large part of the local tax revenue that should be generated and now the Sonics want the income tax back, and not to help build an arena or something of value, just to feed the bottom line of the team.
Why do the Sonics need this kickback on income tax when the Hornets were very successful without it? Is there some state requirement that we take care of the Gaylord family?
This is a direct hit to local and state tax revenue, and it's only for greed. And the entire state is going to have to pay for it. Even after the giveaway to the Sonics the state is going to have to find money for that $700 million big dig highway relocation in downtown Oklahoma City and the American Indian Center in downtown Oklahoma City. The state is going to either get more money for these projects from all of us, or they are just going to delay another Tulsa highway project or cut another Tulsa program.
I need to sit-down:
I actually agree wholeheartedly with Swake's comments.
Get me a pill.
I'll just add a few editorial comments of my own on Corporate Welfare for Millionaires.
All over the U.S., owners of professional sporting teams have perfected a tax-payer extraction process that is near perfect: Garnering Corporate Welfare to benefit the Rich Boys' Club.
An interesting book on this topic can be found at:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com (//%22http://%22)
The stunning "60%" passage of the "MAPS For Millionaire's" 1-cent sales tax for another 15 months will end up spending more to remodel a 5 year old Ford Arena than it cost to build originally ($90 million).
Then, another $60 million in state tax money to up the ante to close to $200 million to line the pockets of Mega-Millionaires at Sonic, Devon Energy, et al.
I've got a message for Mr. Cornett, Bennett, et al:
With inflation going up like a NASA rocket, hitting consumers food and fuel budgets really hard, and tightening their disposable incomes, I would think that this belt tightening might put a damper on their buoyant mood to rush out to buy Sonics season tickets.
And, then, there's the lawsuit by the city of Seattle against the club.
See, there's this matter of a CONTRACT for their Key Arena between the city and the Sonics.......through 2010..........!
[8D]
George Shinn strikes again.
[}:)]
Stupid bastard, I can't escape him. As a native North Carolinian...all I can do is laugh.
As far as the new team...
There is no way the mayor has more power than the marketing genius known as David Stern. The team name will be Oklahoma (insert logo).
I also still think this is a horrible move and the franchise will not be sustainable in Oklahoma City. It's a bad move for the NBA to abandon a market with the size, loyalty and financial capital that Seattle has.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
As far as the new team...
There is no way the mayor has more power than the marketing genius known as David Stern. The team name will be Oklahoma (insert logo).
You are absolutely right. Oklahoma City will be the second smallest market in terms of MSA size (behind Salt Lake City, Utah). There's no way the NBA won't try to maximize their market share by extending across a larger region. Besides, anyone that does professional market research is bound to turn up Tulsa's anti-OKC snobbery. Cornett can shove it, as far as I'm concerned I-44 slopes downward from my eyebrow to the tip of my nose!
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8049250?MSNHPHMA
"Stern suggested that calling the moved club Oklahoma, instead of Oklahoma City, might be desirable because it reflects the importance of other parts of the state such as Tulsa in the franchise's viability."
How about we tax any advertisement for professional sports in Oklahoma City that's placed in Tulsa, i.e . billboards and the such to recoup this money.
Shouldn't someone representing Tulsa at the legislature be pushing for some of the Sonic games to be played at our arena? We can punish them for their ambition or we could attempt to profit from it. Not much money in pettiness.
As far as naming, what other professional teams use a state name rather than a city name?
Florida Marlins
Arizona Diamondbacks
Texas Rangers
Colorado Rockies
New York Mets
New York Yankees
New York Giants
New York Jets
Tennesee Titans
Arizona Cardinals
Minnesota Vikings
Carolina Panthers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Indiana Pacers
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets
New Jersey Devils
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Carolina Hurricanes
Florida Panthers
Colorado Avalanche
Minnesota Wild
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Florida Marlins
Arizona Diamondbacks
Texas Rangers
Colorado Rockies
New York Mets
New York Yankees
New York Giants
New York Jets
Tennesee Titans
Arizona Cardinals
Minnesota Vikings
Carolina Panthers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Indiana Pacers
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets
New Jersey Devils
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Carolina Hurricanes
Florida Panthers
Colorado Avalanche
Minnesota Wild
Now factor out those states whose teams are in such heavily populated or closely located cities that a state name makes sense. Like New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Florida. That leaves Colorado, Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana and Arizona. Then factor out hockey cause no one freakin cares. That leaves six teams that go with the state name. The list of teams using city names is much longer. Bottom line, some do, some don't. Depends.
Like it or not, OKC has more excitement to its name than the name Tulsa or Oklahoma in general. We are viewed as a pretty little oil town that's very political, fundamentally religious, and essentially negative. Perhaps due to our consistently voting down tax issues or maybe the Coburn, Inhofe, Rhema, ORU identification. Accurate or not, OKC wins the branding war. Whatever, at some point we have to stop being angry at OKC and start building some positive enthusiasm for our own city. Focusing on our snobbery and jealousy isn't doing that.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Florida Marlins
Arizona Diamondbacks
Texas Rangers
Colorado Rockies
New York Mets
New York Yankees
New York Giants
New York Jets
Tennesee Titans
Arizona Cardinals
Minnesota Vikings
Carolina Panthers
Minnesota Timberwolves
Indiana Pacers
New York Knicks
New Jersey Nets
New Jersey Devils
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
Carolina Hurricanes
Florida Panthers
Colorado Avalanche
Minnesota Wild
Now factor out those states whose teams are in such heavily populated or closely located cities that a state name makes sense. Like New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Florida. That leaves Colorado, Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana and Arizona. Then factor out hockey cause no one freakin cares. That leaves six teams that go with the state name. The list of teams using city names is much longer. Bottom line, some do, some don't. Depends.
Like it or not, OKC has more excitement to its name than the name Tulsa or Oklahoma in general. We are viewed as a pretty little oil town that's very political, fundamentally religious, and essentially negative. Perhaps due to our consistently voting down tax issues or maybe the Coburn, Inhofe, Rhema, ORU identification. Accurate or not, OKC wins the branding war. Whatever, at some point we have to stop being angry at OKC and start building some positive enthusiasm for our own city. Focusing on our snobbery and jealousy isn't doing that.
I think you're completely missing the point.
First, I don't care if it's called OKC Taxball or Oklahoma Taxball... it's still BS that I get taxed to fund an NBA team I don't really want.
Waterboy:
You're going to have to explain yourself to me. I don't understand your team name comment at all.
New York has Buffalo, Albany, and NYC. Buffalo is clearly capable of supporting it's own pro-teams and in no way identifies with NYC. Yet some NYC teams keep the New York name and drop the "city."
Florida has Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami, Orlando and probably Tallahassee that can support pro teams and many other large communities that fans are drawn from. Yet the Marlins just go with "Florida."
Minnesota certainly has two cities that can support pro teams... and they are marketed as a single metro area (sound familiar?). They exclusively use "Minnesota" in their pro teams regardless of what city they actually play in.
I guess I don't understand what you were trying to get at.
quote:
We are viewed as a pretty little oil town that's very political, fundamentally religious, and essentially negative. Perhaps due to our consistently voting down tax issues or maybe the Coburn, Inhofe, Rhema, ORU identification. Accurate or not, OKC wins the branding war. Whatever, at some point we have to stop being angry at OKC and start building some positive enthusiasm for our own city. Focusing on our snobbery and jealousy isn't doing that.
I agree. That is the perception of Tulsa - we are the place where Oral Roberts saw a 900' tall Jesus that was once rich with oil. OKC has rebranded itself as a vibrant young town and done very well at it. I'm glad OKC is getting an NBA team if as a community that is what they want. I'm neither being snobbish nor jealous of their success.
But that doesn't mean I want to pay for it.
When OKC pays for a new Driller's stadium downtown ($60,000,000 would do nicely), we'll see if they think that sounds fair or not. And that is ignoring the larger issue that the State of Oklahoma should not subsidize a multi-billion dollar entertainment business ANYWHERE in the state. The OKC taking Tulsa money angle is ancillary to that over riding issue in my head.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
But that doesn't mean I want to pay for it.
When OKC pays for a new Driller's stadium downtown ($60,000,000 would do nicely), we'll see if they think that sounds fair or not. And that is ignoring the larger issue that the State of Oklahoma should not subsidize a multi-billion dollar entertainment business ANYWHERE in the state. The OKC taking Tulsa money angle is ancillary to that over riding issue in my head.
+1
I am surpised at the lack of coverage in the Tulsa World regarding the team name. I was expecting a response, considering the amount of support that Tulsa leadership has given to this effort, other than "The team will be called Oklahoma City". It was pretty much the first thing out of his mouth (Mick Cornett). And I think it is a slap in the face to the citizens of Oklahoma...Especially Tulsa, considering the role Tulsa played in making OKC a viable market. Read between the lines on the statements made by David Stern, and I don't think it is hard to conclude that without the Tulsa market, this isn't happening.
quote:
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett: I'd personally like to thank Commissioner Stern, his NBA staff and the members of the Relocation Committee that came to Oklahoma City today and allowed us to give our presentation. We had a number of Oklahomans who were there, many of them as part of the presentation but also there in a support role.
Former Mayors Humphreys and Norick, Mayor Kathy Taylor from Tulsa was down in a support role, Governor Keating, Governor Henry were on hand, Mike Holder, the Athletic Director at Oklahoma State, Joe Castiglione from the University of Oklahoma, Bob Stoops, the Oklahoma head football coach was in the room; as well as the entire ownership group of the Sonics franchise.
So, it was a great show of support and I think symbolic of Oklahoma City's long or at least through two years support of the NBA in this city, and I think (it) reflects well on our stance that we are a perfect relocation site for an NBA franchise. Commissioner, thank you very much for all of the attention that you gave us today.
Q: Commissioner, what did you learn today about Oklahoma City that you didn't already know?
Stern: We knew about the support of the team and the Hornets and how well this community responded to the tragedy of Katrina, but we hadn't been through, in effect, the soon-to-be re-modeled Ford (Center) and seen the plans and the care for some combination of loges and sky suites and restaurants and food service and you know, outdoor roofs, and very modernistic design that is really going to move this Ford Center into the first rank of NBA arenas.
And, I would say there's just something about being in the room with all of the people who are in charge, for the Governor to talk about the quality of jobs, legislation with both leaders of the legislature there; for the mayor to take us through the MAPS program with respect to his predecessors and him for the head of the business units to take us through, really, the breakdown specifically through video travels of the aviation industry, the medical research industry, indeed the 18 universities that are here – to have it graphically spoken to the Committee with respect to the continued flow of quality jobs and quality graduates to fill those jobs, the per capita income, the lower cost of living – I think in its totality as it was presented, it had a great influence on the Committee members, it was very impressive and one understands why it is more than simply Oklahoma City, it is Oklahoma.
I thought that the Mayor of Tulsa being there was extraordinary. The support, the editorial today in the Tulsa paper – you can tell I'm a New Yorker – was, I thought, generous and meaningful to our ownership. And, we learned a lot about the economy of the state of Oklahoma and its demographic and a little bit about its geography. And I'm not sure I quite believe that there's never been a traffic jam between Tulsa and Oklahoma City so that you can always make it in 89 minutes, but that's me, and I'm a skeptical New Yorker, but we learned a lot about that. And there was a fair amount of discussion on DMA's and standard market definitions and the proximity and the like. It was a pretty full explication and pretty much a tour de force on behalf of Oklahoma that I'd say impressed the members of the Committee greatly.
Q. Was there any discussion in this ownership committee about the prospect of once again for the third time in seven years moving a franchise from a larger market to a smaller market; those two previous moves, there's questions now about the viability long term of those franchises in Memphis and in New Orleans. Was there any talk about this concern with downsizing with these franchises?
COMMISSIONER DAVID STERN: You know, I think there was a discussion which indicated that the Board is familiar with the issue, but they focused on the likelihood of success of the Sonics in Oklahoma City; and really, in Oklahoma, because it really involved discussion about Tulsa, as well. And the judgment was that the prospect of continued further losses in Seattle without an adequate arena really rendered that discussion with no good answer other than the movement of the team to Oklahoma at this point.
Q. Commissioner, beyond the Ford Center improvements, what was it really that convinced the Board that Oklahoma City is a legitimate NBA market?
COMMISSIONER DAVID STERN: Well, it was a very long presentation that the committee received in Oklahoma City. But they were greatly impressed with the turnout of the present and two former mayors, the mayor of Tulsa, the present Governor and the previous Governor; the heads or representatives of all of the universities; all of the energy industry; the aviation industry; of course the community itself, the explanations about the depth of the market; and even a little bit of learning about if you drive fast in Oklahoma, and most people apparently do, how close Tulsa is and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the Hornets when they were there, to be a state franchise.
So there was enormous enthusiasm from that perspective, and sort of an outpouring of corporate, government and private support, and educational support, and we got a pretty good education as to the aviation industry, the education industry, aerospace, not to mention energy.
And I think that there was a lot of time spent in the presentation to the committee when they were in Oklahoma City that Oklahoma City is not simply thriving because of only the energy industry, but that it's much deeper than that.
Q. You've mentioned a number of times the importance of Tulsa's buy in to this plan to bring the NBA to Oklahoma City. Based on that, would you have a preference would you like to see this team be called Oklahoma City or Oklahoma? Does it matter to you?
COMMISSIONER DAVID STERN: I'm going to leave that to the politics of Oklahoma. I would guess that the current group would be under significant incentive and pressure to make it an Oklahoma franchise, and that would be a good thing.
But I wouldn't want to put any undue pressure on the ownership group. Although, there was a lot of discussion about the market size of Tulsa; its accessibility to Oklahoma City, and its support of many events in Oklahoma City, and the mayor was there to speak in favor of the application.
So there was some discussion in our meeting about what the actual size of the market is, whether it's simply the Oklahoma City market, or whether you add the additional numbers from Tulsa and it's suburbs, you really see a much larger market than just the Oklahoma City market. [/b]
I can be dense but if 50% of my post makes sense, well, I'm ahead of Shadows.
Take Minnesota. Minneapolis and StPaul are merely separated by a river. Wouldn't have made sense to call a team the St.Paul Vikings or the Minneapolis Vikings when the largest metro in the state is two contiguous cities. Duluth isn't big enough and thats about all for the whole state. Besides, like Tulsa, St.Paul is not a positive brand. So, Minnesota Vikings makes sense. No negatives in that region for Minnesota. We're 90 miles away physically and a million miles away psychologically (or psychographically if you like). And Oklahoma is not as good a brand name as Oklahoma City.
Florida is one long chain of metros from its tip up to Washington D.C. isn't it? They can go either way with a city name or a state name. Still makes sense to say Miami Dolphins or Florida Marlins and since every city there seems to have its own identity a state name can work.
I haven't read Stern's remarks but it seems like he is trying to bring a dog and a cat together in social harmony because he fears Tulsan's really are petty snobs who won't drive the 90 miles to see professional sports. Or at least being some sort of statesman. IMO he is wrong. Sports enthusiasts in a professional sports deprived market like ours will overlook the animosity of Tulsa boosters and follow the team. The sportscasters will be just as excited as if it carried the state name but it will have greater impact as OKC Sonics than Oklahoma Sonics. Too close to Oklahoma Sooners.
I have commented many times that I abhor using any tax dollars to support wealthy team owners who don't need the help and price their product so high that I can't justify going. But I also am pragmatic enough to know that we use tax dollars to entice other businesses AND this will happen whether we like it or not. We should use the opportunity to snag some games and tie in with the marketing.
Does that make sense?
I think everyone understands the motivations behind OKC wanting the team to be called the Oklahoma City _______s. But this was pitched as a unified effort, and statewide tax money is going in. I think Tulsans were just about ready to set aside their rivalry feelings and get on board, given Stern's extensive comments.
But then Cornett goes and shows us that all of that was simply a bait and switch by OKC to ensure that they got what they wanted. This will be an OKC franchise for the people of OKC. And they can have it. Hopefully the Ford Center stays full, or Seattle may come calling in five years.
I think I see what you are saying, just not sure if I agree. I see lots of overlap with your statement in those regards and Tulsa/OKC, especially as we were sold to the NBA. Maybe I'm just so frustrated with the whole issue my brain has given up. [xx(]
BUT... we agree on the fact that subsidies to the NBA are stupid. And I agree that if this goes down Tulsa should do what we can to bennefit. It just seems unlikely that we will recover our investment in this matter.
Again:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3353270
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8049250?MSNHPHMA
"Stern suggested that calling the moved club Oklahoma, instead of Oklahoma City, might be desirable because it reflects the importance of other parts of the state such as Tulsa in the franchise's viability."
Who knows more about NBA marketing? David Stern or some local yokel OKC mayor? Ignoring the commissioner on this one would be a mistake. I understand why OKC would want the team to be called "OKC" instead of "Oklahoma;" they want to be seen as the diamond in the rough. In the land of perception, they want to be the oasis in the middle of the dust bowl. OKC knows Oklahoma has a negative perception, and wants to rise above it by utilizing its own brand equity. Surely Tulsa would do the same thing. BUT, the fact remains that OKC is a small market, and actually needs the Tulsa MSA, as well as the rest of the state to be viable.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Again:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3353270
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8049250?MSNHPHMA
"Stern suggested that calling the moved club Oklahoma, instead of Oklahoma City, might be desirable because it reflects the importance of other parts of the state such as Tulsa in the franchise's viability."
Who knows more about NBA marketing? David Stern or some local yokel OKC mayor? Ignoring the commissioner on this one would be a mistake. I understand why OKC would want the team to be called "OKC" instead of "Oklahoma;" they want to be seen as the diamond in the rough. In the land of perception, they want to be the oasis in the middle of the dust bowl. OKC knows Oklahoma has a negative perception, and wants to rise above it by utilizing its own brand equity. Surely Tulsa would do the same thing. BUT, the fact remains that OKC is a small market, and actually needs the Tulsa MSA, as well as the rest of the state to be viable.
That's what I'm saying. And they will get the rest of the state. The memory of being slighted will fade as people realize this is a chance to visit a pro team within a two hour driving time. Our memories of being shafted for tax dollars will linger but sports fanatics won't even care about a perceived slight.
I should say that I don't care what they name the team but I do understand the motivations. Stern may be a genius marketer but not an infallible one. Also note, OKC drew 12000-17000 for the Hornets I think. More than what Seattle draws for the Sonics.
Pfox-I will admit to not keeping up with local news lately. What leadership and support did Tulsa provide in this Sonics move? They sure kept it on the downlow.
And it wasn't ok for Broken Arrow residents to not want to pay for Tulsa river development[?]
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
And it wasn't ok for Broken Arrow residents to not want to pay for Tulsa river development[?]
A bit different. First of all, you got to vote on the proposal and voted it down. Second, you are very closely connected to Tulsa, most Broken Arrow residents are in Tulsa every day. Third, Parks are a classic government provided commodity for residents to use - not a subsidy for a billion dollar entertainment business. And finally, that tax was called the River Development Project (or whatever), it probably would have created more than 170 jobs for less than $4,000,000 a year - but we didn't tack it on as a rider to some existing law.
While I understand your point, it is not analogous nor would two wrongs make a right.
From what I've read, Mayor Cornett has indicated it will be called the 'Oklahoma City' whatevers...
Meh, OKC can kiss my donkey. They won't be getting ANY of my money unless that sham of a team plays at our new arena at some point. Plus, not a big fan of basketball anyway, although I may go see Orlando/Houston play just because I was a big enough fan of the Rockets when I lived there in 91-94.
Cornett's taking a huge financial risk by dis'ing the people of Tulsa by calling the team the OkC whatevers. OkC WOULD NOT be getting the team if Tulsa wasn't a 90 minute drive away, and that's for sure. Plus, this fraud they pulled on the rest of the state won't go over very well if they don't just call the team the "Oklahoma whatevers."
As long as I'm on the record for saying this entire thing is a bad idea outside of the whole "Oklahoma has a pro sports team!" thought pattern, then I'm content.
Over/under on this team last more than 8 years in OKC? I'll take the under.
Man, good spot call on the +/- 8 years. Bennett has money and now a lot of pride on the line. I'll take over.
3 or 4 years it goes well no matter what, just out of enthusiasm.
After that it depends on team performance and/or what name big names they get to dance out on the court. If they do well, they can hang on. If they suck, attendance will slump.
In a large city there are enough die hards to survive a slump, in Oklahoma I worry. I'll call it over 8 years, the Hornets lasted 14 years in Charlotte (playing well) - I think the team can hold on for 10 in OKC.
[edit]Charlotte has an MSA about the size of OKC and Tulsa together, a little bit larger actually.[/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Man, good spot call on the +/- 8 years. Bennett has money and now a lot of pride on the line. I'll take over.
3 or 4 years it goes well no matter what, just out of enthusiasm.
After that it depends on team performance and/or what name big names they get to dance out on the court. If they do well, they can hang on. If they suck, attendance will slump.
In a large city there are enough die hards to survive a slump, in Oklahoma I worry. I'll call it over 8 years, the Hornets lasted 14 years in Charlotte (playing well) - I think the team can hold on for 10 in OKC.
[edit]Charlotte has an MSA about the size of OKC and Tulsa together, a little bit larger actually.[/edit]
If the Sonics owners end up with a losing team and falling attendance, how long before the Millionaires Club asks the City and State for additional subsidies?
As long as oil prices stay up then there will be adequate corporate funding to keep the team... If oil prices fall then watch out.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
As long as oil prices stay up then there will be adequate corporate funding to keep the team... If oil prices fall then watch out.
The City of Seattle, owner of the Key Arena, has a court hearing in June regarding the remaining TWO years of the Sonics contract to play in the Key Arena.
Unless there's some carrot dangled by Mr. Stern concerning a FUTURE NBA team earmarked for Seattle, then the City has all right to pursue their Scorched-Earth policy against Mssrs. Bennett et al.
Of course Tulsa has the eponymous BOK Arena with NO ONE committed to play even ONE basketball game in it. Even the NCAA Regional Basketball tournaments have all been vacumned up by K.C. and Dallas until after 2012.
Build it and they may NOT come?
We get to heat it, cool it, clean it, and guard it even if it's not used.
At least it won't wear out as fast. Slim benefit, there.....
[:D]
I bet Bennett et al corporate welfarers will end up paying that lease off. Heck, with oil at $120 they will pay up with barely a dent. Not to mention all the SuperDuper Sonic ads they pay themselves with at the Daily Dissapointment.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I bet Bennett et al corporate welfarers will end up paying that lease off. Heck, with oil at $120 they will pay up with barely a dent. Not to mention all the SuperDuper Sonic ads they pay themselves with at the Daily Dissapointment.
They have already offered to pay the lease. Seattle wants more. But your basic thesis is right--I have a feeling they are going to end up paying Seattle off for much more than the lease is worth.
And they can afford it.
Thanks in part to us.
Hi everyone. I've been a reader of the board off and on and find everyone's points very interesting.
Thought I'd use this opportunity for my first post and show you what popped up today in one of my automatic news delivery searches...
It's a shame that I have to read about this on a Seattle News website but I've come to understand that the Tulsa Whirled would either not print or attempt to bury or spin a story as damning to Queen Taylor as this.
She's not only not going to try to fight for us on the issue of the team naming or keeping our tax dollars local; she's apparantly 100% on board with selling us down the river (or turnpike as it happens to be).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004366352_apbknsupersonicsokla.html
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
She's not only not going to try to fight for us on the issue of the team naming or keeping our tax dollars local; she's apparantly 100% on board with selling us down the river (or turnpike as it happens to be).
I didn't see anything in there about her supporting any use of the "quality jobs program" for the team. Just her support of the team, and understanding about the name choice.
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
Hi everyone. I've been a reader of the board off and on and find everyone's points very interesting.
Thought I'd use this opportunity for my first post and show you what popped up today in one of my automatic news delivery searches...
It's a shame that I have to read about this on a Seattle News website but I've come to understand that the Tulsa Whirled would either not print or attempt to bury or spin a story as damning to Queen Taylor as this.
She's not only not going to try to fight for us on the issue of the team naming or keeping our tax dollars local; she's apparantly 100% on board with selling us down the river (or turnpike as it happens to be).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004366352_apbknsupersonicsokla.html
COULD SHE BE THINKING GOVERNOR TAYLOR?
the oklahoma city whats? who cares, not my team, it's an oklahoma city team... since they took my 4 mill a year and can't see the value in an "oklahoma" name... they can have it.. without any support from me... not that i matter, just my choice...
i'm jaded though... this, in a nutshell is how i feel about all of pro b-ball...
my dad says you don't work hard enough on defense. And he says that lots of times, you don't even run down court. And that you don't really try... except during the playoffs.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
I didn't see anything in there about her supporting any use of the "quality jobs program" for the team. Just her support of the team, and understanding about the name choice.
Not trying to be argumentative, but does she have to specifically say "quality jobs program"? She is obviously in favor of it by her comments... the whole article is about Tulsa supporting OKC in this venture and in return being allowed to share in the pride of having a Pro team in the state...
- "there's no reason people in her town can't support an Oklahoma City pro basketball team."
- "what benefits Oklahoma City also benefits Tulsa."
- "it continues to grow the economy of Oklahoma City, which helps Tulsa"
- "We are the two most significant contributors to the state economy. Anything that we can do to help Oklahoma City's economy expand is good for Tulsa."
- "her presense, and the role Tulsa-area residents could play in supporting an Oklahoma City franchise - was noted" by NBA Commissioner David Stern."
- "and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the (New Orleans) Hornets when they were there ... a state franchise."
- "Taylor said she has no problem with the team calling itself "Oklahoma City. I understand that. I wouldn't want the Tulsa Drillers to be called the Oklahoma Drillers,"
- "the BOK Center, will open in September in Tulsa, but Taylor said there have been no discussions about the Sonics playing any games - either of the exhibition or regular-season variety - in the facility."
I guess the most telling statement for me is this:
"Both Taylor and Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said that 20 years ago, it would have been unlikely for leaders in one town to support a major initiative of the other. Taylor, who grew up in Oklahoma City, didn't hesitate"
So I ask... just what is it that Mick Cornett or the city of OKC have done to support any major initiatives in Tulsa? OH... wait I have the answer; NOTHING!
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
i'm jaded though... this, in a nutshell is how i feel about all of pro b-ball...
my dad says you don't work hard enough on defense. And he says that lots of times, you don't even run down court. And that you don't really try... except during the playoffs.
The hell I don't!! LISTEN KID! I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA.
I'm out there busting my buns every night. Tell your old man to drag Walton and Denier up and down the court for 48 minutes.
You don't like movies about gladiators, do you? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
I guess the most telling statement for me is this:
"Both Taylor and Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said that 20 years ago, it would have been unlikely for leaders in one town to support a major initiative of the other. Taylor, who grew up in Oklahoma City, didn't hesitate"
So I ask... just what is it that Mick Cornett or the city of OKC have done to support any major initiatives in Tulsa? OH... wait I have the answer; NOTHING!
As someone who grew up in OKC, perhaps Taylor has high hopes for her former hometown. Or, maybe she's hoping Tulsa will win some marketing opportunity by association. Tulsa really ought to put together a professionally done commercial to air during OKC NBA games.
Personally, I'm thinking Tulsa will win in true ironic fashion, when Tornado Katrina blows the Ford Center away, and the OKC NBA team plays in Tulsa for two years!
Of Course the Tulsa Driller wouldn't be the Oklahoma Drillers because OKC has the 49'ers so there is more than one of said team in the state.
Of course it's like we're suggesting something that has never been done before. Hmmm.. lessee
Golden State Warriors
Indiana Pacers
Milwaukee Bucks
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Jersey Nets
New York Knicks
Toronto Raptors
Utah Jazz
Washington Wizards
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
It's a shame that I have to read about this on a Seattle News website but I've come to understand that the Tulsa Whirled would either not print or attempt to bury or spin a story as damning to Queen Taylor as this.
The speech was yesterday at lunch and the Tulsa World covered it today. What did you expect? A whole new edition printed mid-day because of an out-of-town speech to a Rotary club?
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
Not trying to be argumentative, but does she have to specifically say "quality jobs program"? She is obviously in favor of it by her comments... the whole article is about Tulsa supporting OKC in this venture and in return being allowed to share in the pride of having a Pro team in the state...
- "there's no reason people in her town can't support an Oklahoma City pro basketball team."
- "what benefits Oklahoma City also benefits Tulsa."
- "it continues to grow the economy of Oklahoma City, which helps Tulsa"
- "We are the two most significant contributors to the state economy. Anything that we can do to help Oklahoma City's economy expand is good for Tulsa."
- "her presense, and the role Tulsa-area residents could play in supporting an Oklahoma City franchise - was noted" by NBA Commissioner David Stern."
- "and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the (New Orleans) Hornets when they were there ... a state franchise."
- "Taylor said she has no problem with the team calling itself "Oklahoma City. I understand that. I wouldn't want the Tulsa Drillers to be called the Oklahoma Drillers,"
- "the BOK Center, will open in September in Tulsa, but Taylor said there have been no discussions about the Sonics playing any games - either of the exhibition or regular-season variety - in the facility."
I guess the most telling statement for me is this:
"Both Taylor and Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said that 20 years ago, it would have been unlikely for leaders in one town to support a major initiative of the other. Taylor, who grew up in Oklahoma City, didn't hesitate"
So I ask... just what is it that Mick Cornett or the city of OKC have done to support any major initiatives in Tulsa? OH... wait I have the answer; NOTHING!
What part of this do you really disagree with?
I am excited about a pro team in Oklahoma. Kansas, Arkansas, New Mexico and half of the other states don't have one.
I think it is a good thing for the Mayors of the two biggest towns to support each other.
Do you just hate OKC?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
Not trying to be argumentative, but does she have to specifically say "quality jobs program"? She is obviously in favor of it by her comments... the whole article is about Tulsa supporting OKC in this venture and in return being allowed to share in the pride of having a Pro team in the state...
- "there's no reason people in her town can't support an Oklahoma City pro basketball team."
- "what benefits Oklahoma City also benefits Tulsa."
- "it continues to grow the economy of Oklahoma City, which helps Tulsa"
- "We are the two most significant contributors to the state economy. Anything that we can do to help Oklahoma City's economy expand is good for Tulsa."
- "her presense, and the role Tulsa-area residents could play in supporting an Oklahoma City franchise - was noted" by NBA Commissioner David Stern."
- "and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the (New Orleans) Hornets when they were there ... a state franchise."
- "Taylor said she has no problem with the team calling itself "Oklahoma City. I understand that. I wouldn't want the Tulsa Drillers to be called the Oklahoma Drillers,"
- "the BOK Center, will open in September in Tulsa, but Taylor said there have been no discussions about the Sonics playing any games - either of the exhibition or regular-season variety - in the facility."
I guess the most telling statement for me is this:
"Both Taylor and Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said that 20 years ago, it would have been unlikely for leaders in one town to support a major initiative of the other. Taylor, who grew up in Oklahoma City, didn't hesitate"
So I ask... just what is it that Mick Cornett or the city of OKC have done to support any major initiatives in Tulsa? OH... wait I have the answer; NOTHING!
What part of this do you really disagree with?
I am excited about a pro team in Oklahoma. Kansas, Arkansas, New Mexico and half of the other states don't have one.
I think it is a good thing for the Mayors of the two biggest towns to support each other.
Do you just hate OKC?
I have a problem with Mayor Taylor on this one. I don't think she was doing all she could to make sure Tulsa benefits from this as well as OKC.
If I were mayor, it would be pretty straightforward. There would be two conditions for my presence and total cheerleading/support for the move (including state subsidies for team operation):
1) The team name would be Oklahoma, not Oklahoma City.
2) The team would have to commit to playing games at the BOK center. At least a couple of preseason games, preferably four early regular season home games (out of 41).
Given the massive lip service being paid by David Stern, Clay Bennett and Mick Cornett to the idea of this being a "statewide effort" to be a "major league state" and "Tulsa being a part of the market," these are completely reasonable conditions for the support of the mayor of Tulsa. And yet, Taylor played lapdog to Big Mick so he could get what he wanted, and Tulsa got nothing out of it except diverted tax dollars.
It is obvious from his comments that Mayor Cornett wants this for Oklahoma City and only Oklahoma City. This is not an effort to boost the state; it is a massive ego stroke for a city that has long had an inferiority complex but now has some leverage over its neighbors. And let's be clear: Cornett is fully aware that every Big XII tournament, NCAA regional, national concert, teachers' convention, and corporate relocation that Tulsa gets is one less for OKC. He is still playing the rivalry game; Kathy Taylor is not.
I wish the mayor would have realized the stakes and gone to the mattresses for Tulsa in this situation.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
2) The team would have to commit to playing games at the BOK center. At least a couple of preseason games, preferably four early regular season home games (out of 41).
Is this not a possibility? I keep hearing people say that it is a shame they won't be playing any games at the arena, but I haven't read anywhere that says they won't play any games here. Di I miss an announcement, or are people jumping the gun?
Everybody's b*tching and complaining, but I don't think all the information has been released yet, has it?
Huh...I wonder why this line was left out of these posts. Same article.
"A new 18,000-seat arena, the BOK Center, will open in September in Tulsa, but Taylor said there have been no discussions about the Sonics playing any games - either of the exhibition or regular-season variety - in the facility.
"We'd certainly like to have the dialogue," she said.
If you believe that politicians tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then you believe there have been no discussions behind the scenes for a quid pro quo. You also would believe that motives for criticizing Taylor are all based on fairness and the good of Tulsa.
Yes Roby, the information about the team being named the OKC SOMETHING and a the announcement has already been made that they will get Oklahoma tax money. The tax thing, of course seems to draw the most criticism - and causes the other problems. If they pay for it, do as you please... when you make ME pay for it I'll complain.
- - -
quote:
The Unfriendly Bear wrote
Of course Tulsa has the eponymous BOK Arena with NO ONE committed to play even ONE basketball game in it.
There is at least 2 basketball games scheduled to be played at the BOk arena. A pre-season NBA game and the Tulsa/OU game in December. Add the C-USA tournament in a couple years to that roster... since it looks like a good bet.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
2) The team would have to commit to playing games at the BOK center. At least a couple of preseason games, preferably four early regular season home games (out of 41).
Is this not a possibility? I keep hearing people say that it is a shame they won't be playing any games at the arena, but I haven't read anywhere that says they won't play any games here. Did I miss an announcement, or are people jumping the gun?
Everybody's b*tching and complaining, but I don't think all the information has been released yet, has it?
I've been known to jump the gun before. On the other hand, they're certainly not making overtures toward Tulsa. There has been absolutely no suggestion of such games being played. And it's hard to mistake Cornett's tone for anything but that of a guy doesn't want to share a thing. If he and the owners are persuaded otherwise, then good for Taylor.
And Waterboy--you've read my posts. I'm no Taylor hater. But objectively, either she's playing a damn good game of hide the ball, or she missed the boat on this one. (apologies for mixed metaphors)
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
2) The team would have to commit to playing games at the BOK center. At least a couple of preseason games, preferably four early regular season home games (out of 41).
Is this not a possibility? I keep hearing people say that it is a shame they won't be playing any games at the arena, but I haven't read anywhere that says they won't play any games here. Did I miss an announcement, or are people jumping the gun?
Everybody's b*tching and complaining, but I don't think all the information has been released yet, has it?
I've been known to jump the gun before. On the other hand, they're certainly not making overtures toward Tulsa. There has been absolutely no suggestion of such games being played. And it's hard to mistake Cornett's tone for anything but that of a guy doesn't want to share a thing. If he and the owners are persuaded otherwise, then good for Taylor.
And Waterboy--you've read my posts. I'm no Taylor hater. But objectively, either she's playing a damn good game of hide the ball, or she missed the boat on this one. (apologies for mixed metaphors)
Nah, I was referring to the new guy. Sort of a hazing process.[;)]
Hopefully, if the Mayor wasnt' making overtures, after reading these posts she will.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Yes Roby, the information about the team being named the OKC SOMETHING and a the announcement has already been made that they will get Oklahoma tax money. The tax thing, of course seems to draw the most criticism - and causes the other problems. If they pay for it, do as you please... when you make ME pay for it I'll complain.
I was talking about the fact that people are complaining about the team not ever playing in Tulsa, and that has not been decided yet from my understanding.
As far as the payment and the naming of the team, those are frustrating to me as well and, in my opinion, only hurts OKC's image within the state.
1. This article has been linked to by several other bloggers on a variety of topics. Usually against subsidizing pro-sports teams or against economic development packages as a whole.
Thought that was fun.
2. Here is the New York Times take on the situation, I think they sum it up well:
quote:
Once in Oklahoma (in the fall or in 2010-11), the Sonics will face the prospect of a cable deal smaller than the one they have now. They will likely be denied funds from a league revenue-sharing pool for needy, money-losing franchises through the end of the labor agreement in 2011 (as the price for swapping a big market for a smaller one).
Those shortfalls could be countered by a sweetheart lease at the Ford Center (which will get a $121.6 million renovation courtesy of Oklahoma City voters) and rebates on payroll taxes being considered by state lawmakers.
They lose money on the move. So they are getting Oklahoma tax payers to make up for it.
Interesting thing: If there were ever a high-speed train between OKC and Tulsa, it would only take around 45 minutes from city to city. (High-speed= at least 124 mph)
edit://
Whoops! 124 mph is the EU standard. Apparently anything above 90 mph is considered high-speed here in the States. That would mean it would just take an hour from Tulsa to OKC.
I don't mind the hazing... it's expected being the new guy. Thanks for the warm welcome (not sure I received one)
To answer all of the questions:
I did post the entire article, didn't leave anything out... my first post did so. The second post were only highlights supporting my opinion.
The Tulsa Whirled article is a different article... it was written by their staffers and not the AP unbiased article that quoted Taylor's unfavorable comments from this Tulsan's perspective.
You're right... the issue of games in Tulsa hasn't been settled and there certainly could be a behind the scenes deal being worked, but it doesn't appear so from the comments. I think it's more likely that Taylor is just in bed with Cornet since they are part of the elite OKC democrat crowd and she wants their support in the future for her personal agenda and not anything that benefits Tulsa.
I guess the whole point I was trying to make is the same one Floyd so eloquently put forth... the behavior of Taylor, her comments and actions do not appear to be in defense or to the benefit of Tulsans.
OH... and I don't hate OKC, but I do hate paying for their economic development. We have our own issues here and OKC sure as he|| won't be signing up to pay for them.
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
I think it's more likely that Taylor is just in bed with Cornet since they are part of the elite OKC democrat crowd and she wants their support in the future for her personal agenda and not anything that benefits Tulsa.
In other words:
"I can't drum up any damning evidence, so I will say that she part of the 'elite', thereby validating my argument."
[edit]
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm so sick of the "ruling oligarchy" argument being used for everything.
[/edit]
TUROBY,
I gave my opinion of that situation based on the behavior, comments and facts of the situation that I not only referenced, but are clearly known.
Do you and your self-rightous mouth have an opinion of the situation or just an opinion of my opinion?
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
TUROBY,
I gave my opinion of that situation based on the behavior, comments and facts of the situation that I not only referenced, but are clearly known.
Do you and your self-rightous mouth have an opinion of the situation or just an opinion of my opinion?
I've already expressed my opinion on the situation, and readily admitted that I am waiting for further information regarding the location of games being played.
I'm sorry if you feel like I'm attacking you, but the "elite" argument is old and tired, and serves as a mostly unfounded insult. You've read this forum before, you should know that...
So this whole thing just got approved by the NBA owners about a week ago, right? Maybe 10 days?
Was Kathy supposed to hop on the phone to OKC as soon as Stern stepped down from the podium and start demanding that we get to share? Looks to me like she's playing this thing diplomatically.
She's been known to work behind the scenes before...remember that snakey move to negotiate with the Drillers exclusively? Remember the other one where the city bought that 1 Technology building almost without anybody knowing about it? Say what you will about her, the girl's got skills.
Give this thing some time. It'll play out.
From a strictly business sense, it's dumb not to name the team the Oklahoma whatevers... As the article stated, there is a long standing rivalry between Tulsa and OKC and as silly as it may sound, the inclusion of the word "city" on any of the team merchandise makes it virtually unsellable in Tulsa. But hey, it is what it is. I won't buy the shirt, but I may go to a game or two...and I'd definitely go if it was here. Regardless, I'm glad they're coming.
As for predicting how the team will do...It's going to be hard to attract free agents to Oklahoma. Winning will help, but the team's got some hills to climb. I really hope this thing works out.
Even if Tulsa doesn't get some love out of the gate, as soon as ticket sales start to decline, the tone will change....and maybe even the name.
The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have changed the "location" part of their name over and over again in an effort to appeal to a broader fan base.
quote:
from wikipedia: The team has gone through several name changes in their history, first changing to the California Angels in 1965 to emphasize their status as the only AL team in California. When the Disney Company took control in 1997, they extensively renovated Angel Stadium on the condition that both the stadium's name and the team's name contain the word "Anaheim". Disney was hoping to make Anaheim, the home of Disneyland, a major tourist destination and thus the team became the Anaheim Angels.
In 2005, new owner Arte Moreno wanted to include "Los Angeles" in the team's name, in order to better tap into the Los Angeles media market, the second largest in the country. In compliance with the terms of its lease with the city of Anaheim, which stipulated the team name must contain "Anaheim", the team changed its name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Hotly disputed when initially announced, the change was eventually upheld in court and still stands today, though the team usually refers to itself as simply the Angels in its home media market.
So see? They can change their name whenever the mood strikes them...How does the Tulsa Twisters of Oklahoma City sound?
I know, ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
So this whole thing just got approved by the NBA owners about a week ago, right? Maybe 10 days?
Was Kathy supposed to hop on the phone to OKC as soon as Stern stepped down from the podium and start demanding that we get to share? Looks to me like she's playing this thing diplomatically.
If you read the articles, you'll see she was already there. Which is fine--I don't have a problem with our mayor lending a helping hand to other cities.
Then I read how Mick Cornett immediately insisted that the name of the team would be OKC. He wasn't diplomatic; he was petty.
Did you read the articles? Inclusion of Tulsa seemed to be the main way the owners and Stern rationlized their vote!
And yet, once the deal is done, Tulsa doesn't get thrown a single bone. Don't kid yourself--OKC does not want to share. Whether they will is another question. But they're being b@stards, and I don't like seeing our mayor play nice with b@stards who are using Tulsa's goodwill for their own benefit.
We have a right to be pissed. As of this moment, OKC is insisting that the team name will be Oklahoma City. And there has been precisely ZERO suggestion, other than Mayor Taylor's response to a question posed by a Seattle report, that the Sonics will ever play a single game there. And no indication besides glass-one-third-full speculation to the contrary.
This "oh they could play here" and "oh they could change their name" stuff means nothing compared to our tax dollars and our mayor's kowtowing. Until I see something coming from OKC besides the middle finger, I don't think we should cooperate with their grand ego-stroking schemes.
And one more thing: If Tulsa DOES end up getting games, or the name DOES end up being Oklahoma, I won't take back what I'm saying here. On the contrary, I will credit the power of b!tching and moaning by the average citzen on a forum that local media read regularly to get ledes and scoops. It got the Drillers to stay, and maybe it could get Tulsa a piece of the Sonics action.
I agree about Mick Cornett...
Next time we have an issue with KT, maybe we should just be thankful we don't have that clown.
I'm not a politician (for obvious reasons), but don't you think publicly engaging the guy who just took a hard stance about the team's name could be a mistake?
Who wants to step up to the a-hole in the room and challenge him in front of everybody? You'll just get a public fight. Sometimes it's best to walk over smiling, put your arm around him and walk him outside while whispering in his ear.
Kathy Taylor basically did this...but she drove over on the turnpike instead of walking.
I understand the impassioned responses here. I think we're all passionate about it. I'm just saying that we should let it play out a bit.
It's their new toy. Their big, rich citizen fought for it, then paid for it, their city passed the tax to build the thing, their city supported the Hornets so well when they were in town...They don't want their thunder stolen and I understand. This state tax came too late in the game for Tulsa to get to hold any real, public claim to anything to do with the team. Does it suck? Yes.
From here on, the deals are best done privately so as not to incite angry message boarders in OKC.
You are right. Maybe that's why I'm not mayor--but I still would not have been inclined to support Cornett/Bennett's efforts at all without some sort of assurances of games played in Tulsa.
Over on OKCTalk, they are discussing the same issues here: http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/12683-calling-team-oklahoma-city.html
One of their posters (Doug Loudenbeck, who apparently believes Tulsa has no stake whatsoever in the team) took a look at the Ford Center lease and found this:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/NBA/lease_articleXX.jpg)
So there's legal space there for Tulsa to pull two regular season games. We'll see if it happens.
Read that whole thread, though, to get an idea of the attitude of OKCers in general towards our fair city and their gains relative to it. Then you'll start to realize why I'm so fiery about this--Tulsans are buying into the "Major League State" rhetoric, but OKCers really mean "Major League City with nice quiet supportive neighbor-suburbs up the turnpike."
2 Tulsa games does not equal $2,000,000 for Tulsa. We still lose.
Clearly I'm more upset on the state tax issue than being slighted by OKC. It's their team, call it what you want and have it play where you please. Just don't ask me to pay for it!
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Just don't ask me to pay for it!
How much are you really paying?
That shouldn't be relevant. Let's say $.50. They just reached into my pocket uninvited and stole my gum money. But not just mine. They are asking for money that was to go to the entire state. Perhaps once that sinks in to the rural legislators they will refuse to pass this bill.
I don't care so much about the name, but there should be something in this for the rest of us besides a smile, a wink and a toll fee.
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Just don't ask me to pay for it!
How much are you really paying?
$60,000,000 overall. So about $20 per Oklahoman. Family of three. I'm paying $60.
I'm paying $60 for something I don't want in a place I don't live for a purpose I don't agree with. Worse still, there are nearly 300,000 families in the Tulsa metro area paying that $60 too. Collectively we are paying about $18,000,000.00.
I can think of better uses in my community for $18,000,000.00 than sending it to an NBA franchise in another community:
Overlay 720 miles of Tulsa roads
Refit and resurface 4 "major" bridges
Higher 45 new teachers in perpetuity (interest of off 18mil would pay for them)
30 new cops.
30% of a downtown baseball stadium.
A couple more top notch river park developments (like announced QT park).
Cover all costs of the ice storm clean up.
Purchasing the private portion of Turkey Mountain as well as other parkland in the city.
Business Incentives for Tulsa start up companies (180 $100,000 grants)
$18 million worth of city beautification.
- - -
I can think of plenty I'd rather do with $18mil than give it to the NBA. I can think of plenty I'd rather do with $60 than give it to the NBA (many TU, ORU, Drillers, or Tallons games - for instance). In fact, I'd rather throw $60 worth of dollar bills in the air at the mall just to see what happens - than give it to the NBA.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Just don't ask me to pay for it!
How much are you really paying?
$60,000,000 overall. So about $20 per Oklahoman. Family of three. I'm paying $60.
I'm paying $60 for something I don't want in a place I don't live for a purpose I don't agree with. Worse still, there are nearly 300,000 families in the Tulsa metro area paying that $60 too. Collectively we are paying about $18,000,000.00.
I can think of better uses in my community for $18,000,000.00 than sending it to an NBA franchise in another community:
Overlay 720 miles of Tulsa roads
Refit and resurface 4 "major" bridges
Higher 45 new teachers in perpetuity (interest of off 18mil would pay for them)
30 new cops.
30% of a downtown baseball stadium.
A couple more top notch river park developments (like announced QT park).
Cover all costs of the ice storm clean up.
Purchasing the private portion of Turkey Mountain as well as other parkland in the city.
Business Incentives for Tulsa start up companies (180 $100,000 grants)
$18 million worth of city beautification.
- - -
I can think of plenty I'd rather do with $18mil than give it to the NBA. I can think of plenty I'd rather do with $60 than give it to the NBA (many TU, ORU, Drillers, or Tallons games - for instance). In fact, I'd rather throw $60 worth of dollar bills in the air at the mall just to see what happens - than give it to the NBA.
Go back to my post on average income and since Oklahoma is a poor state and Tulsa is not you can likely double Tulsa's contribution to Oklahoma City's NBA team.
I thought of that swake, by $18mil was enough to make my point.
And "higher" = "hire." See why we need more teachers. [}:)]
quote:
Clearly I'm more upset on the state tax issue than being slighted by OKC. It's their team, call it what you want and have it play where you please. Just don't ask me to pay for it!
Well said... same for the detailed alternate uses for Tulsa's tax $ that could be otherwise spent.
quote:
Originally posted by DamTulsa
You're right... the issue of games in Tulsa hasn't been settled and there certainly could be a behind the scenes deal being worked, but it doesn't appear so from the comments. I think it's more likely that Taylor is just in bed with Cornet since they are part of the elite OKC democrat crowd and she wants their support in the future for her personal agenda and not anything that benefits Tulsa.
Elite OKC democrat crowd???
Mayor Mick (Cornett) is a former OKC sportscaster and a lifelong Republican. 62% of his city's voters just passed $121.6 mil in arena upgrades as part of MAPS III in March. It makes ZERO sense for him to recommend the team take "City" out of its name to satisfy a buncha
"anti-any-tax" "state-of-Sequoyah" yokels/whiners/sore losers in Tulsa... his city just passed an extension of MAPS taxes primarily to seal the deal for the Sonics to come to OKC...
http://www.maps3.org/q_and_a.html
BTW, OKC hasn't had a Democrat in the mayor's office since 1987 (Andy Coats).
Ron Norick -- April 14, 1987 - April 9, 1999
Kirk Humphreys -- April 9, 1999 - November 3, 2003
Guy Liebmann November 3, 2003 - March 2, 2004
Mick Cornett March 2, 2004 - Present
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
As far as the new team...
There is no way the mayor has more power than the marketing genius known as David Stern. The team name will be Oklahoma (insert logo).
I also still think this is a horrible move and the franchise will not be sustainable in Oklahoma City. It's a bad move for the NBA to abandon a market with the size, loyalty and financial capital that Seattle has.
Average attendance for the Hornets in OKC: 18,329 per game.
Average attendance for the Sonics in Seattle for 2006-2007 season: Seattle 15,631 (26 of 30)
What a surprise.
You don't think Oklahoma can
sustain anything... you said the same thing when I brought up more than a dozen different statistics that indicated Tulsa's support for Major League Soccer... and MLS satisfaction with Tulsa as a potential city for expansion...
The NBA IS supportable in OKC. David Stern may be a "marketing genius" for the NBA overall, but he doesn't know the OKC market; implying so gives him magical powers he simply doesn't have.
If Tulsans voted for $121mil to seal the deal for the NBA to come to town, TulsaNow would be deluged with people INSISTING the team have Tulsa's name on it... period.
lets use the quality jobs bill to get us an mls team...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
lets use the quality jobs bill to get us an mls team...
NOW your talkin'. Hey, I know of a city in our area that is just hankerin' for a sports stadium.
Believe it or not, the Daily Oklahoman seemed to be practically endorsing Tulsa's efforts at including a soccer stadium in LaFortune's Vision2025 efforts back in the spring of 2003.
They reported on Tulsa's MLS stadium in May/June 2003 as if Vision2025 were a done deal w/o the arena... which was strange considering there was also an effort by Brad Lund/Bob Funk/Express Sports for a team in Edmond at the very same time....
From 2003...
http://media.www.thevistaonline.com/media/storage/paper962/news/2003/01/23/Sports/Mls-To.Try.Out.Edmond-2114105.shtml
After the MLS stadium didn't show up on Vision2025.....
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2454629&postcount=1
UCO resumed their efforts, and an $8mil to $9mil renovation that would have been shared by the state and Edmond Public Schools blossomed into a $15mil to $18mil project...
From 2004...
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:T0oeu3sUpLEJ:www.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04SB/SCR41_int.rtf+Wantland+stadium+renovations+state+funding&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
2nd Session of the 49th Legislature (2004)
SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 41 By: Snyder
AS INTRODUCED
A Concurrent Resolution authorizing the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges, acting on behalf of the University of Central Oklahoma, to issue certain revenue bonds pursuant to Section 4002.1 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, Section 4002.1 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires legislative approval expressed by concurrent resolution prior to commencing any action in anticipation of issuance by a board of regents of revenue bonds authorized by Sections 4001-4017 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or any other bonds authorized by law to be issued by such boards; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges, acting on behalf of the University of Central Oklahoma, desires to renovate, construct, and make improvements to Wantland Stadium and provide equipment, fixtures, landscaping, and other improvements in the vicinity of the stadium (collectively, the "Wantland Stadium -- Sports Complex -- Project") located on the campus of the University of Central Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the amount of revenue bonds to be issued for the renovation, construction, equipping, and improvement of the Wantland Stadium -- Sports Complex -- Project shall not exceed the sum of Eighteen Million Dollars ($18,000,000.00); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges, acting on behalf of the University of Central Oklahoma, desires to issue revenue bonds pursuant to Section 4002 et seq. of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes for the purpose of financing the renovation and construction of improvements to Wantland Stadium and providing equipment, fixtures, landscaping, and other improvements in the vicinity of said stadium (collectively, the "Wantland Stadium -- Sports Complex -- Project") located on the campus of the University of Central Oklahoma, and funding of any required reserves and payments of costs associated with the issuance of the bonds....
Multi-million dollar renovation at UCO...
(http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics18/400/BB/BBAWTQGMDHTGBNJ.20060114233751.jpg)
(http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics7/400/TW/TWOCZULEMQREGMO.20060708200832.jpg)
LaFortune tried to get an "enterprise zone" for a location on the river for an MLS stadium post-Vision2025 but the state wasn't open to it at the time...
Gee, so maybe it's time for yet another of my "MLS in Tulsa" threads....
(http://tulsaroughnecks.com/images/tulsa_roughnecks_217_pics_064_teyg.jpg)
USA Network Pregame Aug. 18, 1982 -- NASL Tulsa vs New York Cosmos in front of an announced crowd of 28,638 at Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1M7as42uBw
I hope I'm wrong but I don't see Oklahoma supporting this team at NBA prices. We supported the Hornets at very reduced ticket prices. $10 tickets were plentiful on stubhub during the hornets' tenure.
But real NBA prices mean you can't even get nosebleeds for less than $30 and you pay at least $60-$80 if you want to be in the lower bowl, close enough to justify going to the game vs. watching on TV.
That is not true. There are $12 tickets sold for tomorrow's Dallas playoff game.
I bought $10 seats for NBA games in Dallas and Washington DC this past year.