The debates in Oklahoma City over the wisdom of coughing over arena money while other pressing issues exist is painfully familiar to longtime Seattle residents.
Except the Thunder, like many teams, get a sweetheart lease deal. The last one had them paying 1.6 million a year with the team keeping the naming rights. How does this come close to being a good investment?
One economic impact study pegs the direct annual economic impact of the Thunder at $600 million and 3,000 jobs. Additionally, since the Thunder’s arrival just 15 years ago, the City’s GDP has grown 62 percent. And since 2008, Oklahoma City has moved from America’s 31st-largest to its 20th-largest City.
Throughout recorded arenas/stadiums are not made to be profitable but are used for the health and we’ll being of its citizens. There more for a cultural and social wealth than to bring in money for the citizens
That’s a fair angle to take and more honest than people twisting themselves into knots insisting that giving a billionaire hundreds of millions of dollars is going to pay for itself.
Peoples misconception money concerning building an arena is that it’s going to have an direct effect. Its not because sport franchises are businesses unto themselves. The benefit of having a sports franchise is more akin to the McDonald’s effect. This effect shows that when a McDonald’s builds a store more restaurants build near them. Also the stores around a McDonald’s is profitable. This is based off of the foot traffic effect more people go into one spot the more businesses become successful. Having a sport franchises brings other businesses into an area and state. Young people want to be entertained, businesses want to keep young talent, businesses put their company in places that young people will stay their. Since the Thunder have come to OKC (2008) the population went from 40 to the 20s. More large companies have moved here also during this time. Having a sports franchise has helped OKC grow economically and by population.
Now do the thing we’re you isolate whether that age trend was unique to OKC? Oh it wasn’t? It was common in most cities? Was it just because millions of millennials moved to the cities for jobs as they graduated?
The population of Oklahoma for 70+ years was always in the 40s, this is just based off of the overall trend of growth in the US. Since 2008, the year the Thunder moved here, the population of OKC has moved from the 40s to the 20s. Although OKC biggest employers in the energy sector have had layoffs and cut spending. The biggest rise in businesses have been in the Tech industry which have a younger demographic. The amount of Tech companies has risen and moved to OKlahoma since the Thunder have arrived.
Well at least when it comes to McDonalds, the city doesn’t have to pay for them to be built… Can you point to some of the companies that have been attracted by the Thunder? For the top employers in OKC I’m just seeing a bunch of health industry and government jobs…
Damn … I thought you were taking the “it’s not about money for the city” approach, which still sucks but is at least palatable, but then you actually argued the economic benefit. Dude, this stuff has been disproven time and time again. Funding stadium projects in small markets is not a net economic benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise. Period.
Now do the thing we’re you isolate whether that age trend was unique to OKC? Oh it wasn’t? It was common in most cities? Was it just because millions of millennials moved to the cities for jobs as they graduated?
This is what people keep missing. Yes, it’s a continuation of a 1 cent tax. No, the jobs from the arena aren’t enough to offset that economically. The jobs from all of the revenue businesses in OKC generate because of the Thunder does offset that.
Nothing else is generating as much traffic to OKC and Bricktown as the Thunder does.
Ultimately it’s not gonna be a good investment from a pure numbers base lol. But the $50m upfront plus the lease agreement should get them somewhere on recouping costs plus the revenue from other activities at the stadium.
Then factoring in jobs for building the stadium, jobs associated with the Thunder and stadium activities, the impact the Thunder has on broader economic activity in the city and raising the profile of OKC nationally etc. Arguably it’s still not a good deal but it’s at least fairly close if not net positive when considering all impacts and obviously it would be preferable if the Thunder would pay fully for the stadium. But the truth is that the city has absolutely no leverage in this situation and that the deal is not what a lot of people itt are making it out to be - where taxpayers are just gifting a stadium and all it’s revenue to a billionaire
Except the Thunder, like many teams, get a sweetheart lease deal. The last one had them paying 1.6 million a year with the team keeping the naming rights. How does this come close to being a good investment?
One economic impact study pegs the direct annual economic impact of the Thunder at $600 million and 3,000 jobs. Additionally, since the Thunder’s arrival just 15 years ago, the City’s GDP has grown 62 percent. And since 2008, Oklahoma City has moved from America’s 31st-largest to its 20th-largest City.
Does the study attribute all of OKC’s growth to the stadium?
Thunder fans are hilarious
Is that the study from the Mayor’s press release? I have three guesses as to who paid for it
They are the 46th largest media market. They were the 45th largest market when they moved from Seattle. City size itself doesn’t really matter.
That’s a fair point!
Throughout recorded arenas/stadiums are not made to be profitable but are used for the health and we’ll being of its citizens. There more for a cultural and social wealth than to bring in money for the citizens
That’s a fair angle to take and more honest than people twisting themselves into knots insisting that giving a billionaire hundreds of millions of dollars is going to pay for itself.
Peoples misconception money concerning building an arena is that it’s going to have an direct effect. Its not because sport franchises are businesses unto themselves. The benefit of having a sports franchise is more akin to the McDonald’s effect. This effect shows that when a McDonald’s builds a store more restaurants build near them. Also the stores around a McDonald’s is profitable. This is based off of the foot traffic effect more people go into one spot the more businesses become successful. Having a sport franchises brings other businesses into an area and state. Young people want to be entertained, businesses want to keep young talent, businesses put their company in places that young people will stay their. Since the Thunder have come to OKC (2008) the population went from 40 to the 20s. More large companies have moved here also during this time. Having a sports franchise has helped OKC grow economically and by population.
Now do the thing we’re you isolate whether that age trend was unique to OKC? Oh it wasn’t? It was common in most cities? Was it just because millions of millennials moved to the cities for jobs as they graduated?
The population of Oklahoma for 70+ years was always in the 40s, this is just based off of the overall trend of growth in the US. Since 2008, the year the Thunder moved here, the population of OKC has moved from the 40s to the 20s. Although OKC biggest employers in the energy sector have had layoffs and cut spending. The biggest rise in businesses have been in the Tech industry which have a younger demographic. The amount of Tech companies has risen and moved to OKlahoma since the Thunder have arrived.
Well at least when it comes to McDonalds, the city doesn’t have to pay for them to be built… Can you point to some of the companies that have been attracted by the Thunder? For the top employers in OKC I’m just seeing a bunch of health industry and government jobs…
No company is attracted to a city solely for an NBA team… Maybe see who has the naming rights for the current arena?
But Paycom predates the Thunder…
Damn … I thought you were taking the “it’s not about money for the city” approach, which still sucks but is at least palatable, but then you actually argued the economic benefit. Dude, this stuff has been disproven time and time again. Funding stadium projects in small markets is not a net economic benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise. Period.
Now do the thing we’re you isolate whether that age trend was unique to OKC? Oh it wasn’t? It was common in most cities? Was it just because millions of millennials moved to the cities for jobs as they graduated?
This is what people keep missing. Yes, it’s a continuation of a 1 cent tax. No, the jobs from the arena aren’t enough to offset that economically. The jobs from all of the revenue businesses in OKC generate because of the Thunder does offset that.
Nothing else is generating as much traffic to OKC and Bricktown as the Thunder does.
Ultimately it’s not gonna be a good investment from a pure numbers base lol. But the $50m upfront plus the lease agreement should get them somewhere on recouping costs plus the revenue from other activities at the stadium.
Then factoring in jobs for building the stadium, jobs associated with the Thunder and stadium activities, the impact the Thunder has on broader economic activity in the city and raising the profile of OKC nationally etc. Arguably it’s still not a good deal but it’s at least fairly close if not net positive when considering all impacts and obviously it would be preferable if the Thunder would pay fully for the stadium. But the truth is that the city has absolutely no leverage in this situation and that the deal is not what a lot of people itt are making it out to be - where taxpayers are just gifting a stadium and all it’s revenue to a billionaire