Bucks Sold

[reinko]

Peeps thoughts?

[hairy worthen]

I don’t know how you interpret the sale as anything but positive for Milwaukee and the Bucks.  A condition of sale is that they do not move the team. Herbie is putting up 100 mil and the new owners are putting up 100 mil for a new arena. That will be enough momentum to get the financing in place to get it done. A new arena should revitalize down town and at least in the short term generate enthusiasm for the Bucks.  Marquette playing in a new arena wouldn’t suck either.

What we don’t know is what kind of owners they will be, but in this case change is probably good. At least it will give the team a new direction because the direction they are going in now isn’t the right one.

[Hards Alumni]

I tried to come yesterday and say this...

The Bucks are staying in Milwaukee until at least 2017, and the new arena has 200m worth of funding.

Also came to drop an, "I TOLD YOU SO" to those that thought the Bucks were going out of town.

[warriorchick]

A condition of sale is that they do not move the team. Herbie is putting up 100 mil and the new owners are putting up 100 mil for a new arena.

That's all well and good, but a new stadium is estimated to cost $500 million.  I am not sure the taxpayers are all that willing to pony up the rest.  What happens then?

[source?]

I'm curious as to what the specific contractual language is, in terms of "staying in Milwaukee." I have to assume it is contingent on getting a new arena, which is still not a given. $200 million is nice for starters but the estimated cost is something like $500 million. Considering the stink that was thrown over Miller Park where does the rest of that come from? As an aside, Miller Park seats 40,000+ and has a retractable roof. It was finished in 2001 and cost $400 million. How does a +/- 20,000 seat arena cost $100 million more? I get inflation but come on.

[hairy worthen]

That's all well and good, but a new stadium is estimated to cost $500 million.  I am not sure the taxpayers are all that willing to pony up the rest.  What happens then?

In reality the cost will probably be closer to 600 to 700 mil.There will be some additional corporate dollars donated. There is no way it gets done with at least some public financing. The case for public financing is easier to sell if the team owners are already donating 1/3 of the cost.  The Bucks will play 41 dates there, the building will be used for other events that will benefit the city.

[warriorchick]

In reality the cost will probably be closer to 600 to 700 mil.There will be some additional corporate dollars donated. There is no way it gets done with at least some public financing. The case for public financing is easier to sell if the team owners are already donating 1/3 of the cost.  The Bucks will play 41 dates there, the building will be used for other events that will benefit the city.

What "other events" would be coming to the new stadium that can't be held in the BC?

[source?]

For the record I live in Milwaukee and would fully support a continuation of the tax for Miller Park to support this new arena. I believe having the Bucks is great for the downtown restaurants and shops and many of them would shut down without them. Downtown would also become less of a destination.

I do wonder how this will impact Marquette. The BMO is still a decent college arena. If it isn't torn down we could easily stay there or go to the new arena (supposed to be one block north of BMO). We might even be better served if we become the single most important tenant of the BMO. However, I don't see Milwaukee being able to support two 20,000 seat arenas in the long term.

[hairy worthen]

I'm curious as to what the specific contractual language is, in terms of "staying in Milwaukee." I have to assume it is contingent on getting a new arena, which is still not a given. $200 million is nice for starters but the estimated cost is something like $500 million. Considering the stink that was thrown over Miller Park where does the rest of that come from? As an aside, Miller Park seats 40,000+ and has a retractable roof. It was finished in 2001 and cost $400 million. How does a +/- 20,000 seat arena cost $100 million more? I get inflation but come on.

Miller Park is a positive sell for public financing. It has been a huge success for the city and the team and they will use that as an example of what can happen with a new facility.

[keefe]

 What happens then?

Thunder

[Tugg Speedman]

The Bucks were sold to Mark Lasry (founder of the hedge fund firm Avenue Capital and former employer of Chelsea Clinton) and Wes Edens (Founder of Fortress Capital and one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party).

They paid $550 million and agreed to not move the team and kick in $100 million for a new stadium.  Kohl also agreed to kick in $100 million as well.  They now need $300 million for a new stadium.

Question, isn't $200 million enough to Gut the Bradley Center and redo that?



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/goldeneagles.html

Marquette could get a real boost from new arena
By Michael Hunt of the Journal Sentinel   
April 16, 2014

The proposed downtown multipurpose arena, which got a $200 million jumpstart Wednesday, could really help the Golden Eagles in terms of recruiting, BMO Harris Bradley Center officials say.

So far, Marquette has remained behind the scenes in the arena discussion. The school has chosen to keep a low profile in what has been a politically uneven situation. But if the arena gets built, the school will continue to be a partner with the Bucks in sharing the building.

The Golden Eagles have the distinction right now of playing in an NBA arena, but other schools in the Big East have advantages with better home facilities.

Added ...........


Above Hunt wrote ....

The Golden Eagles have the distinction right now of playing in an NBA arena, but other schools in the Big East have advantages with better home facilities.

I think this is badly worded and he means the Bradley Center versus other NBA arenas that BE teams play in.  I don't think he means other BE teams have a better facilities than The AL.

Is this a correct interpretation?

[hairy worthen]

What "other events" would be coming to the new stadium that can't be held in the BC?

Concerts for one. In recent years, some concerts have passed by Milwaukee because they can't guarantee the money. The concerts require a certain amount up front guaranteed, if the building can't recoup that money because of how it is set up, then the concerts aren't coming there. A new arena would cause a lot of other development in the downtown area and attract other events and conventions. Look at Indianapolis as an example.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I got that feeling as well.  Hunt just worded it poorly.   

The question is, do they keep the location for the facility or do they find an entirely NEW spot for the arena?  I would sincerely hope the arena stays as close to downtown (and campus) as possible.  The students need to be able to get there with relative ease. 

Finally, as a Chicago resident and Bulls fan, I desperately want the Bucks to succeed.  I think the new arena and ownership could work miracles for the Bucks.  Milwaukee is a basketball town, they have just been unfortunate with leadership in the past.  At the bare minimum (since the Bucks pick no lower than 4th), the team is looking at adding one of: Wiggins, Embiid, Parker or Exum - all franchise corner stones. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

I love this headline in today's JS 

Incoming Bucks owners could make dramtic changes

[Sir Lawrence]

Peeps thoughts?

My thought?  Perhaps the Senator can now afford a new sports jacket.  

[LAMUfan]

What "other events" would be coming to the new stadium that can't be held in the BC?

NCAA tourney games as well, heard something on the radio yesterday that the BMO actually did not make all the qualifications to host games and they had to make and exception this year

[brandx]

The Bucks were sold to Mark Lasry (founder of the hedge fund firm Avenue Capital and former employer of Chelsea Clinton) and Wes Edens (Founder of Fortress Capital and one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party).

Of course this would be a boon for Milwaukee - locally, nationally, and globally. Which is the exact reason it will be hard to do.

This sale is a BILION + dollar investment in Milwaukee - of which private investors are paying at least $700 million.

But do you think our state legislators will give money for Milwaukee? Come on, these are the same people who just voted on the right to secede from the US. Need I say more?

[MikeDeanesDarkGlasses]

I love this headline in today's JS 

Incoming Bucks owners could make dramtic changes

Key word is COULD They just write this headline to garner attention.  Nothing may happen for all we know.  If anything, I'd like Hammond to be able to keep his job and do it without anyone intervening, like Kohl.  Hopefully, the new owners have an idea of how to run a team.  We shall see .......

[ChicosBailBonds]

Of course this would be a boon for Milwaukee - locally, nationally, and globally. Which is the exact reason it will be hard to do.

This sale is a BILION + dollar investment in Milwaukee - of which private investors are paying at least $700 million.

But do you think our state legislators will give money for Milwaukee? Come on, these are the same people who just voted on the right to secede from the US. Need I say more?

State legislators represent their own districts.  Not a lot of love for Milwaukee for many reasons.  So yes, you should say more because there is more to the story.  People up in Rhinelander don't care about Milwaukee and certainly don't like to see the lion's share of the money going there.  That's just the way it is.  No different than many states I've lived in.  They feel like they are working hard and all the money is going to the big city which they feel has just as many negatives and positives to it.  Not sure they are entirely wrong.

On secession...please...what was it, one caucus that suggested it?  They will vote on it in May and it will get soundly defeated.  I would call it more of a protest vote because so many people are tired of the all consuming monstrosity in D.C., but nothing more than that.

Personally, I never support public assistance for sports arenas or stadiums.  If the people want to put public assistance dollars toward it, the people should have the right to vote on it as a referendum.  Then you can blame the people for the outcome.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd love to know what kind of language is in there in terms of how long they must hold the team before they sell it.  In other words, maybe this group can't move it, but what happens if they sell it?  Also would like to know what conditions are put in place where a move is still possible.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Key word is COULD They just write this headline to garner attention.  Nothing may happen for all we know.  If anything, I'd like Hammond to be able to keep his job and do it without anyone intervening, like Kohl.  Hopefully, the new owners have an idea of how to run a team.  We shall see .......

I just meant the spelling error in that headline

[Coleman]

Is it a #donedeal?

[Coleman]

That's all well and good, but a new stadium is estimated to cost $500 million.  I am not sure the taxpayers are all that willing to pony up the rest.  What happens then?

Wisconsinites are so god damn cheap, and penny wise and pound foolish

[akmarq]

State legislators represent their own districts.  Not a lot of love for Milwaukee for many reasons.  So yes, you should say more because there is more to the story.  People up in Rhinelander don't care about Milwaukee and certainly don't like to see the lion's share of the money going there.  That's just the way it is.  No different than many states I've lived in.  They feel like they are working hard and all the money is going to the big city which they feel has just as many negatives and positives to it.  Not sure they are entirely wrong.

I'm sure Rhinelander and the rest of central WI would be in GREAT shape economically if it wasn't for Milwaukee down there producing the lion's share of economic activity in the state. They just need to be given a chance!

Despite that fact, public funding for these things is dumb. They'd be better off building attractive office space for modern companies to relocate here than subsidizing facilities that profit about 2% of the population. You can't just look at Miller Park and say "it's brought in $X in economic activity!" You have to consider what those funds might have returned to the city/state had they been put to a different use.

[brandx]

Personally, I never support public assistance for sports arenas or stadiums.  If the people want to put public assistance dollars toward it, the people should have the right to vote on it as a referendum.  Then you can blame the people for the outcome.

Very reasonable argument. But while we concentrate on talking about sports arenas and stadiums, public funding for private businesses is a common practice everywhere. And it happens all of the time.

I wonder why we look at it one way with a sports team and another with private business. If they are successful, the result is the same - more jobs, more tax income, adding to the tax base, etc.