Tulsa tax payers to fund Hornets

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Renaissance]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[TulsaSooner]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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?

[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.

[Wrinkle]

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.

[MDepr2007]

Thats one way to get Tulsans to tax themselves just like OKC folks do (joined below the hip with this one)[]

Isn't that what everyone here wanted anyway??

[Renaissance]

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.

[waterboy]

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]

[Renaissance]

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.

[Friendly Bear]

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

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]

[deinstein]

George Shinn strikes again.

[}:)]

Stupid bastard, I can't escape him. As a native North Carolinian...all I can do is laugh.

[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.

[perspicuity85]

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!