Use of BOK Center - Mayor Taylor vs. Tulsa Talons

[sgrizzle]

Did I miss something? Why would they apologize? The story made it clear that schedule dates for the Talons were not yet solidified with the league. Also, they didn't feel particularly slighted and that such schedule pre-emptions were common. You on the other hand made it look like a sinister attempt by the mayor to utilize the arena for personal use while costing the taxpayers and the Talons. Now, we're out a $15,000 booking. Man up and apologize.

Jitter owes us $15,000... or, ironically, about 2c a person.

[TeeDub]

I just hope the BOK center gets a good deposit for deadbeats who move their bookings.

http://newsok.com/following-questions-arena-event-moved/article/3358522

[cannon_fodder]

First of all, I think most people on this board, even those I frequently disagree with, will agree that I am fair.  When I'm wrong, I admit that I am wrong.  If someone raises a good point but I still disagree, I state it as such.  In this instance, you posted a rumor with no source and no backup.  When I called it into question looking at actual dates and times, the wedding page in question, and examined what I had to work with I called it as I saw it.  At that point you failed to defend the statement or provide any explanation.

Now it comes to light that there was something to it.  So I apologize to you to the extent that it turned out not to be just a wild rumor.  I understand why you took the story and ran with it now, but it isn't the damning scandal that people so desperately want:

I heard the Talons have now received word from the BOK Administration that the BOK Center will not be available on one of its schedule game nights.  Why?   Mayor Taylor needs the BOK Center!  Why?  For her daughter's wedding! 

So, let me get this right.  We have a local sports franchise paying good money to use the BOK Center and they are getting bumped for Mayor Taylor's daughter's wedding.  Does this make sense?

Is Mayor Taylor paying for the use of the BOK Center?  Will our police force be used at such event?  Will Mayor Taylor pay for the use our police?

According to the article the Talons had the right to refuse to give up that date.  Not knowing who it was that wanted to book it, they decided to reschedule the game with the league and gave up the date.   The schedule was not SET when the event was planned, I saw nothing about planners being printed, I didn't even find a website referencing that date. I see no undo influence there and no evidence that they were "bumped" by virtue of the reception being the Mayors daughter.

Had the change come after the schedule was finalized, it would have been a "bad deal," [said Talons co-owner Ross].

"This didn't really cause us any angst," [co-owner Primeaux said]said. Primeaux said one May date is fine, and the team would rather have more games in the summer.

So apparently the Tallons thought the trade was a good deal.  Trading a May date for one latter in the summer.  Presumably the business men are smart enough to make the decision to pass their right of first refusal on the May 30th date.

The Talons pay $15,000 to use the venue.  The wedding was to pay $15,000 to use the venue.  I think the game would probably generate more revenue for the venue overall and certainly more money for the Tallons, but it was not a skirting of the rules.  So is Mayor Taylor paying for the use of the BOK Center?  Yes, she was going to.

I can't say I fully follow the somewhat rambling article -   They didn't want to give up the date but didn't have to and did anyway.  They like to have a certain number of home games including 2 per month but decided it would be OK to give up that one and replace it with another.  They had to change the schedule at the last second but it was apparently set last November.    What influence did Bill Clinton use to get his May 2nd date for the building?  - But overall it seems to try to make much to-do about what is probably nothing.

On my Scandal-O-Meter, with a 1 being a State Legislator getting a ticket for 10 mph over the speed limit, a 5 being a homophobic  Minnesota Senator being gay, and a 10 being a Governor Selling a Senate seat . . . this is about a 3.  Enough to mention it and sniff around a bit to see if something really is up.  But unless something is found it isn't a big deal.

Show me undue influence.  Show me favoritism.  Show me who got screwed in this deal.  And I'll show you outrage.
<hr>

Also, I hope you didn't take my Shenanigans call personally.  I've been caught outraged or in early reporting mode and been wrong (incineration on ice storm cleanup among them).   All I can do is operate with the best knowledge I have available and give sources when available to convince people of the truth of my statements, to compensate for lack of a source I've taken to disclaiming rumors as such.

[DowntownNow]

Mountain out of a mole hill maybe but there appears to be some merit after reading the story carefully for people to at least inquire into this if not question it outright.

Some excerpts from the Tulsa World story:

Shortly after the statement by the mayor's daughter was released (cancelling the reception), BOK Center Manager John Bolton said he had not been notified of the cancellation, adding that no contract had been signed confirming May 30 for the wedding reception.

I question why a contract for such an important event wasn't already contracted for with less than 60 days before the event and after all the announcements had been made.  What had happened if another event had wanted to contract for that date and was ready to sign?  There should have been a contract in place, seems Ms. Frame just assumed it would be made available no?

On Tuesday, Talons co-owner Paul Ross said the event (reception) prompted a scheduling change for the team.

So the event, while later stating it wasn't necessarily the determining factor, still necessitated a scheduling change - for an uncontracted for event mind you.

"Is our schedule worse than before? Yes, it worked out that way," Ross said.

Again, an uncontracted event that in some fashion helped force a scheduling change, made worse the scheduling of a guaranteed revenue generating event.  That event was lost as they will now be playing only once in May.

On Tuesday, Ross said it's not unusual for the team to lose potential game dates at its home venue, "the only thing that seemed unusual in this case was the timing" while a draft of the team's schedule was pending with the league.

Knowing how event scheduling works, I would have to questions BOKCenter GM Bolton's approach to this with regards to timing, not to mention holding a date without a contract, and I would assume without a deposit but that hasnt been mentioned.  I wonder how many other parties are required to put down a deposit to even hold a date in a venue such as this and if they cancel, that deposit is often times forfeited, particularly so close to the scheduled date.  

Would love to see a more in-depth look at the facts in this, more than were presented in this latest story.

[RecycleMichael]

From the comments section of the TulsaWorld...(which we all know comes from an fair, rational, level-headed and well-educated readership).

After trying to decipher this mishmash of a story, are not these the facts?

A, The Talons were offered that date before the wedding was booked.
B, They declined that specific date
C, The wedding was booked.
D, The Talons come back later looking for that date after the league changed the schedule.
E, Noticing the wedding, they start whining and a city councilor starts tossing around baseless accusations.

It is only a story because an anonymous poster wrote it here and a city councilor started talking about it involving the Mayor. If any one of us had tried to book an event there under the same situation, there would be no discussion

[DowntownNow]

Wrong Michael, if any of us had tried to book the BOKCenter, we would have had to sign a contract locking in that date.

And the your facts appear to be slightly off. 

A - Talons schedule sought May 30 and presented to league as draft
B - Wedding "booked" (although no contract) for May 30 forcing Talons to reschedule and change draft
C - Talons declined to challenge reception date (presumably allowed under contract) in their final schedule
D - Talons schedule around reception, losing one May game date
E - Someone brings the question up (Not necessarily the Talons but could be)

I would call it more of a story since there appears to be more facts behind this.  Certainly far more than were originally provided with the original post.  Certianly more since there was no signed contract in place for the reception and a venue date was held on essentially a promise...don't think you or I could get away with a promise.  But if I'm wrong, let me know and I will call BOK today to "book" an event since I apparently dont have to sign anything, I might even be able to mess with the Oilers next season schedule that way.

[sgrizzle]

A-Talons begin laying out tentative dates
B-Talons contact BOK Center saying they have events tentatively scheduled for two days in May
C-Talons are contacted by league who asks for further changes
D-Talons lose 1 date in May but gain 1 during the summer, when they prefer to have home games anyway
E-People freak out when they realize it's the Mayor's Daughter who was one of the tentative dates
F-Mayor's daughter moves her reception, and the city loses $15,000 income
G-Everyone loses

[DowntownNow]

Grizzle,  I'll agree its a lose-lose for everyone at this point but that still doesn't answer the questions:

Why wasn't there a contract in place for this wedding reception? 
Why did a non-contracted event get to change the Talon's schedule?

Believe me, in the business world it only makes good sense that if you have an reception event that is tentatively going to shake up a pre-existing contract events schedule, you make sure that reception date is locked up by contract so you're not bitten in the donkey later and the question of favortism is brought up.

Had Ms. Frame/Taylor family had a contract in place for May 30, the Talons declined to challenge the date (allowed per their contract apparently), this would be a non-issue. 

But essentially, an un-contracted booking was allowed to influence a contracted scheduling.  Therein lies the problem and why Councilor Christiansen chose to question it.  How can an un-contracted event take precedence over a revenue generating, contracted party and their schedule?

[Conan71]

Grizzle,  I'll agree its a lose-lose for everyone at this point but that still doesn't answer the questions:

Why wasn't there a contract in place for this wedding reception? 
Why did a non-contracted event get to change the Talon's schedule?

Believe me, in the business world it only makes good sense that if you have an reception event that is tentatively going to shake up a pre-existing contract events schedule, you make sure that reception date is locked up by contract so you're not bitten in the donkey later and the question of favortism is brought up.

Had Ms. Frame/Taylor family had a contract in place for May 30, the Talons declined to challenge the date (allowed per their contract apparently), this would be a non-issue. 

But essentially, an un-contracted booking was allowed to influence a contracted scheduling.  Therein lies the problem and why Councilor Christiansen chose to question it.  How can an un-contracted event take precedence over a revenue generating, contracted party and their schedule?

Obviously you know less about event booking than you'd like for us all to believe.  "Buisiness world" and "events/entertainment" world are different entities.  There's a lot that happens in the event world that doesn't take into account good business sense.  It is not THAT uncommon to not have a KX signed 60 days out, unless you are talking about normally high-volume months like the holidays, or if there is a recurring event on the schedule.  I still didn't gather from the World story as you are implying that the Frame reception was the sole reason for the date change for the Talons.  It sounds as if the Talons might not have taken that date with or without the reception as the responses from the Talons owners leaves less than a firm conclusion.  I guess there just has to be something nefarious in the background for the conspiracy theorists who will take a pot-shot at Mayor Taylor at every turn.

[Conan71]

You're only NOW noticing this? I haven't been following city politics for long, but as long a I can remember it has always been a battle between Mayor and Council. And while discourse can be helpful in presenting new ideas or techniques, arguing about EVERYTHING (recycling, community gardens, streets, etc) is holding the city back...

Well aware of it for a long time, just a little ignorant on exactly how deep the animosity runs until the last couple of months.  It extends to a deeply personal level for some councilors to the detriment of their constituents.

[rwarn17588]

Well aware of it for a long time, just a little ignorant on exactly how deep the animosity runs until the last couple of months.  It extends to a deeply personal level for some councilors to the detriment of their constituents.

Not to mention that a good portion of the council has been acting dumber than a bag of hammers for a long time.

There's nothing like being an idiot to ruin your credibility as a public servant and a taxpayers' watchdog.

[sgrizzle]

Grizzle,  I'll agree its a lose-lose for everyone at this point but that still doesn't answer the questions:

Why wasn't there a contract in place for this wedding reception? 
Why did a non-contracted event get to change the Talon's schedule?

Believe me, in the business world it only makes good sense that if you have an reception event that is tentatively going to shake up a pre-existing contract events schedule, you make sure that reception date is locked up by contract so you're not bitten in the donkey later and the question of favortism is brought up.

Had Ms. Frame/Taylor family had a contract in place for May 30, the Talons declined to challenge the date (allowed per their contract apparently), this would be a non-issue. 

But essentially, an un-contracted booking was allowed to influence a contracted scheduling.  Therein lies the problem and why Councilor Christiansen chose to question it.  How can an un-contracted event take precedence over a revenue generating, contracted party and their schedule?

Councilor Christiansen chose to question it because it was the Mayor. Do you think he checked on every other event on the BOK calendar? There was another event that effected the Talons schedule too, did they have a contract?

[TeeDub]

Regardless of anything else, is there a default "penalty" for booking an event and then canceling?


Also, can I book the BOK center for the evening for $15,000?

[sgrizzle]

Also, can I book the BOK center for the evening for $15,000?

Yes

[DowntownNow]

I love how no one can address the actual questions (or all of them) posed in a comment.  So let me repost:

Why wasn't there a contract in place for this wedding reception? 
Why did a non-contracted event get to change the Talon's schedule?

Grizzle - Do you know for fact Councilor Christiansen looked into this just because it was the Mayor?  His statement in the Tulsa World article reflected his desire to make sure no one citizen could change the Talons' schedule.  That could be you, me, the Mayor, someone from OKC (gasp!)  It's a legitimate question in light of the facts coming out about this.

By your's and those dissenting group's logic...anyone can call up the BOK, say they want to "book" an event sometime in the future, never sign a contract but hold the BOK to reserving that date against any other future revenue generating performer, event or conference and at the last minute, cancel without penalty.  Good argument if it wasn't lacking for sound judgement and fiscal sense.

You mention another event that interfered with the Talon's schedule...care to name it?  If you're talking about the Salvation Army's 16th annual William Booth Society Benefit Dinner, I'd like you to present proof that they don't have a contract.  And the Talon's could have challenged the benefits date according to the article unless it was perhaps already contract well in advance.  The proof of the wedding is in the article...Bolton stated as much.  If the Salvation Army doesnt have a contract for that date, they are susceptible to as much question as this is getting.