Thunder karma

[okcpulse]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Tulsa fans are bitter no doubt. They prefer to support TU sports. The idea that the team would receive more support statewide had it been named for Oklahoma rather than OKC doesn't seem reasonable to me. In fact, it seems petty. Yes, we helped pay for it but OKC is the cash/money brand, not Oklahoma. They aren't losing games because of their location. They have good fan support for a new team in a poor state.

I compare the situation to teams like the Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, and the Utah Jazz.  First some population stats:

Indianapolis metro population: 2 million
Indiana state population: 6.3 million
Minneapolis-St Paul metro population: 3.5 million
Minnesota state population: 5.2 million
Salt Lake City metro population: 1 million
Utah state population: 2.6 million
Oklahoma City metro population: 1.25 million
Oklahoma state population: 3.6 million

Oklahoma City is a small market for an NBA team.  Teams that are named for the state rather than the city usually are in small markets.   And these teams are located in states with only 1 NBA team (Golden State Warriors are a notable semi-exception.)  And you might want to disregard the Minnesota stats, because it's possible the team is named Minnesota instead of Minneapolis is because nobody wanted to leave out St Paul.  Minnesota knows how to get the entire state behind their teams (Timberwolves, Twins, Vikings.)  The Thunder need the entire state, and they turned their back on almost 2/3 of the state.  I've never lived in OKC and I've only been there a handful of times, so I have no ties with the city.  However, I do have ties with the state of Oklahoma because I live here now and I grew up right on the state line.  And since I have no ties to OKC, I see no reason to support their team (their bland, generic logo doesn't make me want to support them either.)

And I'm not even from here, so while I think I understand the OKC-Tulsa rivalry, I don't have any long-standing biases (other than thinking that Tulsa is a far nicer city than OKC) like natives sometimes have.

You're comparing Oklahoma... with two metropolitan areas... to states with only one metropolitan area.  Indiana?  Indianapolis.  Utah? Salt Lake City.  Minnesota?  Minneapolis-St.Paul (no, they are RIGHT next to each other, so it counts as only one metro area).  Oklahoma?  Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Now to the STATE funds.  Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team.  Can someone clarify that for me?  Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?

[grahambino]

we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks.   oh...yeah.  wait. huh? hmm.  nevermind.

Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks.   oh...yeah.  wait. huh? hmm.  nevermind.

Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*

Apples and oranges.

Last I checked, the AAA Redhawks didn't ask for a state handout and weren't marketed as a 'statewide' team.  But conveniently don't bring those points up.

[xx(]

[grahambino]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks.   oh...yeah.  wait. huh? hmm.  nevermind.

Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*

Apples and oranges.

Last I checked, the AAA Redhawks didn't ask for a state handout and weren't marketed as a 'statewide' team.  But conveniently don't bring those points up.

[xx(]

They weren't 'marketed' as a Statewide team....
they're name *was* the Oklahoma RedHawks... O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A.  

$60,000,000 / 15 years = $4,000,000 / yr
$4,000,000 / 3,617,316 (2000) = $1.10 / yr

If you think these TIFs doesn't cost you more than $1.10, in loss of revenue for direct local services, you're dreaming.  

But, hey, we have another crappy bookstore!  We have another McDonalds, another Arby's!  
Which is sucking a lot more money than $1.10 per person a year.

Again, you're blaming the team for asking.  When you should only blame the legislature for giving.

Waterboy is correct.
/thread

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

we, as Tulsans missed a great opportunity to get behind a 'state branded team' in the Oklahoma RedHawks.   oh...yeah.  wait. huh? hmm.  nevermind.

Now, I wonder why they changed their name...
*scratches head*

Apples and oranges.

Last I checked, the AAA Redhawks didn't ask for a state handout and weren't marketed as a 'statewide' team.  But conveniently don't bring those points up.

[xx(]

They weren't 'marketed' as a Statewide team....
they're name *was* the Oklahoma RedHawks... O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A.  

$60,000,000 / 15 years = $4,000,000 / yr
$4,000,000 / 3,617,316 (2000) = $1.10 / yr

If you think these TIFs doesn't cost you more than $1.10, in loss of revenue for direct local services, you're dreaming.  

But, hey, we have another crappy bookstore!  We have another McDonalds, another Arby's!  
Which is sucking a lot more money than $1.10 per person a year.

Again, you're blaming the team for asking.  When you should only blame the legislature for giving.

Waterboy is correct.
/thread

Just because you name something for the state doesn't mean you're marketing for them.  The NBA and Bennett actively promoted this team as 'Oklahoma's Team'.

What a crock.

And just because the legislature voted it in doesn't absolve the organization from responsibility in taking the handout.  Sure, the elected officials are to blame, but who is the end beneficiary?

Enjoy your season tickets.

[Neptune]

The OKC team was doomed from the beginning.  The owners only purchased this team, a very valuable Seattle squad, to drag it to Oklahoma in order to strip it of all value.  They will make money in OKC, they just won't have better than average players.  That's the way you make money when you cut your potential market down by 60 to 75%, or more.  See: Hugh Culverhouse.

Might as well expect losing seasons from here on out.

[cannon_fodder]

1.10 * 15 * 905,000 (Tulsa MSA) = $15,000,000.  Isn't that about what OSU Medical Center needs to survive?  Bah!  Oh well, send it down the turnpike to the NBA.

quote:Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?

Yes.  Tulsans personally write checks to the State year after year.  Business send money to the state year after year. A disproportionate share of that money then stays in OKC.  For things like moving highways, government jobs, public health care, to support your tourism industry and for professional sports teams.  

If you are arguing that each municipality should pay it's own way in the state and reap the rewards of what it is able to produce, I'm certainly game for that.  With 65% of the exports of Oklahoma we'd be happy to keep our wealth in the metro area.  I believe for every $1 sent to OKC, Tulsa gets back 72 cents while OKC actually draws money from the state (read $1+ back for each kicked in).  

So that sounds OK, a ~40% increase in local funding would be just fine with me.  If you want to argue that OKC deserves state funding for NBA team because it produces the wealth, then let's make it official.  OKC can spend every penny in state funds that it generates, and no more.

Short of that, it is a state wide subsidy for your season tickets.

And again, further than a Tulsa/OKC thing... State subsidies for pro teams is a bad concept all around.  If a municipality wants a team, an owner thinks they can make money on a team, and fans want to see a team - why can't they pay for it?

To rectify this situation please send my family our $50 share of the NBA subsidy.

[okcpulse]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1.10 * 15 * 905,000 (Tulsa MSA) = $15,000,000.  Isn't that about what OSU Medical Center needs to survive?  Bah!  Oh well, send it down the turnpike to the NBA.

quote:Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?

Yes.  Tulsans personally write checks to the State year after year.  Business send money to the state year after year. A disproportionate share of that money then stays in OKC.  For things like moving highways, government jobs, public health care, to support your tourism industry and for professional sports teams.  

If you are arguing that each municipality should pay it's own way in the state and reap the rewards of what it is able to produce, I'm certainly game for that.  With 65% of the exports of Oklahoma we'd be happy to keep our wealth in the metro area.  I believe for every $1 sent to OKC, Tulsa gets back 72 cents while OKC actually draws money from the state (read $1+ back for each kicked in).  

So that sounds OK, a ~40% increase in local funding would be just fine with me.  If you want to argue that OKC deserves state funding for NBA team because it produces the wealth, then let's make it official.  OKC can spend every penny in state funds that it generates, and no more.

Short of that, it is a state wide subsidy for your season tickets.

And again, further than a Tulsa/OKC thing... State subsidies for pro teams is a bad concept all around.  If a municipality wants a team, an owner thinks they can make money on a team, and fans want to see a team - why can't they pay for it?

To rectify this situation please send my family our $50 share of the NBA subsidy.

Then the state of Louisiana makes Oklahoma look like a cake walk.  The New Orleans Saints are a state subsidized team... literally.  But they aren't the Louisiana Saints.

The state taxes you all are complaining about are a part of the Quality Jobs act, are they not?  Correct me if I am wrong, but the Quality Jobs Act is geared toward a tax rebate for a company for producing quality jobs.  Whirlpool applied for the Quality Jobs program when they opened their Tulsa plant in the late 1990s.  Other than tax rebates, how else is the state subsidizing the team?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by okcpulse

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1.10 * 15 * 905,000 (Tulsa MSA) = $15,000,000.  Isn't that about what OSU Medical Center needs to survive?  Bah!  Oh well, send it down the turnpike to the NBA.

quote:Now to the STATE funds. Did Tulsa actually physically write out a cashier's check for the team. Can someone clarify that for me? Does it mathematically occur to anyone that perhaps the tax breaks are easily supported by what Oklahoma City contributes to the state?

Yes.  Tulsans personally write checks to the State year after year.  Business send money to the state year after year. A disproportionate share of that money then stays in OKC.  For things like moving highways, government jobs, public health care, to support your tourism industry and for professional sports teams.  

If you are arguing that each municipality should pay it's own way in the state and reap the rewards of what it is able to produce, I'm certainly game for that.  With 65% of the exports of Oklahoma we'd be happy to keep our wealth in the metro area.  I believe for every $1 sent to OKC, Tulsa gets back 72 cents while OKC actually draws money from the state (read $1+ back for each kicked in).  

So that sounds OK, a ~40% increase in local funding would be just fine with me.  If you want to argue that OKC deserves state funding for NBA team because it produces the wealth, then let's make it official.  OKC can spend every penny in state funds that it generates, and no more.

Short of that, it is a state wide subsidy for your season tickets.

And again, further than a Tulsa/OKC thing... State subsidies for pro teams is a bad concept all around.  If a municipality wants a team, an owner thinks they can make money on a team, and fans want to see a team - why can't they pay for it?

To rectify this situation please send my family our $50 share of the NBA subsidy.

Then the state of Louisiana makes Oklahoma look like a cake walk.  The New Orleans Saints are a state subsidized team... literally.  But they aren't the Louisiana Saints.

The state taxes you all are complaining about are a part of the Quality Jobs act, are they not?  Correct me if I am wrong, but the Quality Jobs Act is geared toward a tax rebate for a company for producing quality jobs.  Whirlpool applied for the Quality Jobs program when they opened their Tulsa plant in the late 1990s.  Other than tax rebates, how else is the state subsidizing the team?

How many Whirlpool line workers make $millions a year?

I said two years ago the NBA was a bad idea and I'm still saying it, especially more so since they are getting tax breaks.  Why do they need it when they pay these players millions of dollars a year?  I wouldn't consider the NBA worthy of tax breaks like that since they are an entertainment based industry.  I know it's a strange comparison, but it would be like the state giving Night Trips a tax break because they're employing 'exotic dancers'.

I was wondering how long it would be before you chimed in.

[cannon_fodder]

The quality jobs act excluded entertainment and provided a 7 year term.  It was specifically modified to allow subsidize the NBA in OKC for an extended period of time.  Just because you stick something into a bill does not mean it corresponds with the purpose of that bill.

And yes, Whirlpool gets Quality Jobs Program money. They have exhausted their funds because no one amended the bill to double their time and likely did not get $60,000,000:  

- $131,000,000 facility they own
- $260,000,000 in annual payroll
- 1,300 jobs
- Vast majority of revenue brought IN to Oklahoma from outside of the state
- Recently added 100 jobs and expanded their plant
- Qualified for quality jobs act

OKC Thunder:

- Owns and pays taxes on no facilities (subsidized facilities)
- $60,000,000 annual payroll, 90% to 18 people
- under 100 jobs
- Majority of revenue from within Oklahoma
- Will not significantly increase employment or property tax base
- Did not qualify for jobs act


Really?  You want to compare a major manufacturing plant to subsidizing an NBA team?  Do the math on that one.  

Other than the $60mil state subsidy by modifying the "quality jobs" act to apply to entertainment franchises with over $30mil in payroll playing professional basketball and extending the period they can collect that subsidy... then no, I am not aware of any other State subsidies yet.

[okcpulse]

Hoss, my point was to ask cannon_fodder if there were any other state subsidies for the Thunder besides the Quality Jobs Act.  I never said I agreed with it.  I don't.  It wasn't necessary.

My point to mention Whirlpool is that I could easily say that Oklahoma City helped pay for the plant, and the Port of Catoosa, and a large number of Corps of Engineer projects around Tulsa.  But I don't.

[cannon_fodder]

Corp of Engineers, manufacturing plant... NBA team.

See the difference?

If OKC was getting quality jobs money for a Toyota plant you would not hear this argument.  I am not anti OKC.  Development down the turnpike is good for our manufacturing base too.

[okcpulse]

I've listened to several Tulsans in person slam OKC on Tinker's air force maintenance contracts.  "There goes more of our money down the pike!" They'd say.

I agree with you on your last post, cannon, but I am basing my posts off of the remarks of other Tulsans and not just those on this board.

[RecycleMichael]

I am one of those whiners.

I feel totally screwed by so much of my money going to do things for OKC. I travel to OKC a few times a month, read their newspapers and follow developments. Every time I go, we are meeting in some new state government funded office building or museum and I can get there on a free road.

I deal with regulatory agencies and they all tell me about how much outreach they do, then list off all the Oklahoma city area schools they work in and show me a budget where they had only enough money to stay in town. Every time I need someone, I hear that they closed the Tulsa office and consolidated everybody to be in OKC.

The power in this state is rural first, OKC second, state universities third and Tulsa last.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

People to blame:
67 - Lamons
68 - Benge (SPONSORED THE BILL!!)
71 - Sullivan
77 - Proctor
79 - Watson
23 - Tibbs

and guess what? All the above who voted Yay were rewarded with reelection last month.  So, yeah, we apparently like to vote against our own-self interest & then b*tch and moan about it when it happens.  

I see some high-profile Oklahoma City area reps. voting Nay on this bill, Kern, Terrill, Wesselhoft...

So yeah, keep blaming the team & the ownership of the team.
Instead of the majority of Tulsa House reps. that voted in favor of (one sponsoring) the bill.  SB1819.

Let's not forget, Mayor Taylor was a pretty vocal cheerleader herself...

And OKC had already passed MAPS 3....

Back in 2002 when LaFortune started telling Tulsans that Major League Soccer was really and truly interested in expanding to T-town.... OKC and Brad Lund/Express Sports took some initiative for OKC/Edmond... after the soccer stadium for Vision2025 fell through, I was hoping at the time that OKC could actually land an MLS team, use it as a stepping stone to an NHL team... then Tulsa could get that team by default as an OKC leftover...

So OKC's trying to run with the bigger dogs...?  Dallas, San Antonio, Houston... good for them.