Income base numbers suggest Tulsa 'could' support NHL..

[JeffM]

pipedream.

[swake]

According to this ranking of 55 cities that don't have NFL teams Tulsa is ranked 21st and has "sufficient" economic capacity for an NFL team.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/los-angeles-is-the-clear-choice.html?appSession=70878849212654&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=3&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

[Hoss]

pipedream.

Says the soccer fan...don't see MLS soccer here...

[JeffM]

These things come out every year or two:

From 2009:  http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2009/12/stadium-seating

http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/sports/2009/12/04/how-cities-rank-for-potential-sports-expansion

Major League Soccer (MLS) has the widest range of potential options. Forty-two open markets have income bases that are large enough to support a professional soccer team. (See the accompanying chart for ratings for all markets in all leagues.)
    Other leagues have fewer options. Eighteen markets currently outside the NFL have enough money to maintain a football franchise. The National Basketball Association (NBA) has 17 open markets with sufficient TPI, the National Hockey League (NHL) has 16, and Major League Baseball (MLB) has only two.
    Nineteen areas are overextended, with Denver, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Tampa facing the worst problems. The income bases of these overextended markets are inadequate for their existing teams, let alone any new ones.

The only sport currently proceeding with expansion is MLS, which is adding franchises in Philadelphia, Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver during the next two seasons. It could easily keep growing, with 42 additional markets having the financial wherewithal to support pro soccer.

The study analyzed TPI data to generate capacity scores for each market in each sport. A score of 100 indicates that an income base is strong enough to support a team, while a reading of between 70 and 99 is a sign of a borderline base that may or may not be adequate.

These ratings were then used to concoct expansion scenarios for MLS and the other four leagues. It identified Montreal and Rochester, New York, for example, as ideal soccer markets, given their substantial income bases and long histories of supporting the game. (See the scenarios sidebar for breakdowns for all five leagues.)

The NFL, NBA, and NHL find themselves in similar situations, respectively having 18, 17, and 16 open markets with adequate income bases. But baseball has virtually nowhere to turn, since the TPI required for an expansion or relocated team in that sport is so high.

Just two markets currently outside of MLB have income bases sufficiently large to join its ranks: Riverside-San Bernardino, California, and Montreal. And the latter is tainted because it lost a baseball franchise, the Expos, to Washington five years ago (the Expos were renamed the Nationals).

Overextension is a serious problem in Denver, which has franchises in all five sports. The Denver metropolitan area could use an additional $92.5 billion in total personal income to provide an adequate base for its existing franchises.

Same ol' same 'ol.... and NHL ain't in any mood to try other "sunbelt" cities anytime soon....

[Hoss]

These things come out every year or two:

From 2009:  http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2009/12/stadium-seating

http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/sports/2009/12/04/how-cities-rank-for-potential-sports-expansion

Same ol' same 'ol.... and NHL ain't in any mood to try other "sunbelt" cities anytime soon....

People are reading way more into what I posted.  Bettman (the NHL commish) has said as much (about not needing to add teams).  I was merely posting a report that addressed the financial viability of certain markets to support the NHL.  There was, at one time, a movement looking at moving the Penguins, and we were in the running for that, when they were putting the 'new arena' ultimatum to the Steel City.  So it does speak to whether or not we could.

Me?  I'd rather see the AHL, because the NHL would price me out of regular game attendance like I do now.

[Laramie]

Tulsa is the 54th largest MSA

Other southern NHL markets are (I'm excluding northern cities since they tend to support hockey better regardless of size)

LA - 2
Dallas - 4
Miami/Ft Lauderdale - 8
San Fransisco/San Jose - 11
Phoenix - 14
St Louis - 18
Tampa/St Petersburg - 19
Columbus - 32
Charlotte - 33
Nashville - 38

Tulsa would be the smallest southern market in the NHL by far.  I don't think the NHL is going to expand and any movement I think would go to SA, Houston, or Canada before they would move here. 

I do not doubt our city's ability to rally behind a top league professional team.  I believe if somehow we did get an NHL team, that they could do well here.  I know I would go to 2-3 games a year, but I just don't see it happening.

True Tulsa would be the smallest market; however, Tulsa is within 125 miles of Wichita and 90 miles of Oklahoma City and would have more regional support than cities like Nashville, Tampa-St. Petersburg & Phoenix.

Tulsa is a tight-knit community in which the whole town would support its NHL experience.   Gary Bettman didn't buy into the fact that in 1997 when Oklahoma City entered the NHL expansion derby that Tulsa would be a supporter of an NHL team in OKC.

Now that Oklahoma City is on very strong footing in the NBA; Bettman just might be willing to revisit the Tulsa-Oklahoma City scenario as one media market.

There are more that 1.3 millions TV households in Tulsa-Oklahoma City combined.  That would put us in the top 25 markets in the United States.

[JDG78]

Not trying to be a jerk, but did anyone else notice that the TPI (total personal income) data referenced from 2010 shows that OKC has 10 Billion dollars more in personal income than Tulsa?

Surprising.

[Hoss]

Not trying to be a jerk, but did anyone else notice that the TPI (total personal income) data referenced from 2010 shows that OKC has 10 Billion dollars more in personal income than Tulsa?

Surprising.

Why?  Larger population base.

[swake]

Why?  Larger population base.

That amount measured Per Capita is a little more meaningful measurement.

Tulsa has a total income per capita of $40,904 which ranks 69th of the 366 metro areas. Oklahoma City has a per capita of $39,288 which ranks 99th. Out of the 100 largest metros Tulsa ranks 35th and Oklahoma City ranks 52. When you factor in the low cost of living in Oklahoma these are really good numbers.

The overall average for the more than 258 million people that live in the 366 metro areas is $41,847. The median income for metro areas is $35,737. The average vs median skews so far off because the largest cities have the highest incomes (and highest costs of living). 85 million people live in the 11 largest metro areas and they have an average income of $49,109. But that list includes very high cost of living cities like San Francisco, New York, LA, Washington, Boston and Miami.

National Average is $40,572
National Non-Urban Average $34,033


Tulsa $40,904
Oklahoma Urban Average $39,748
Oklahoma City $39,288
Oklahoma Average $37,155
Oklahoma Rural Average $32,921

[les_stockton]

It's good to see the numbers and the breakdown per capita.  Thanks for posting.

I agree with Hoss.  The AHL more closely fits my budget and the competition is a little higher than in the CHL.

I'd be happy if we could just get AHL here and hopefully an ownership group with the will to have a winning team.

[JDG78]

I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa.  Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything.  The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...

Thoughts?

[Red Arrow]

I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa.  Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything.  The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...

Thoughts?

People from OKC area have tax loopholes and spend their $ out of state.

[Hoss]

I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa.  Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything.  The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...

Thoughts?

Maybe return to OKCTalk with your findings?

[Hoss]

People from OKC area have tax loopholes and spend their $ out of state.

Case in point...the HUGE tax breaks to lure the Seattle Super...errr....Thunder to Oklahoma.

[swake]

I was just surprised because many on this forum seem to think the majority of sales tax and personal income tax revenue comes from Tulsa.  Well... Apparently that is not even close to being true... I always here how OKC is stealing money from Tulsans to fund their projects, yet they produce more income to fund those projects... Now, I don't believe that OKC steals anything.  The majority if not all of their progress comes from self imposed city tax funding via TIF's, BIDS, and MAPS...

Thoughts?

What percentage of Oklahoma City's personal income is derived from taxes, ie government employees.