A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?

[Tugg Speedman]

Arena construction — not just plans — linked to Bucks lease
By Don Walker
Sept. 6, 2014

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/arena-construction--not-just-plans--linked-to-bucks-lease-b99346176z1-274230051.html


Under terms of the Bucks sale, construction of an arena to replace the BMO Harris Bradley Center must be underway by Oct. 1, 2017 — or the NBA will step in.



The National Basketball Association has Milwaukee Bucks owners Marc Lasry and Wes Edens on the clock.

Under terms of Herb Kohl's $550 million sale of the team to Lasry and Edens, groundbreaking and construction of a new arena are linked to the expiration of the Bucks' current lease at the BMO Harris Bradley Center, according to a source familiar with the deal. The lease expires Oct. 1, 2017.

That's a more compact — and firm — timetable than had been understood in the immediate wake of the sale, when it was reported that plans for an arena had to be in place by November 2017.

If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.

Neither the Bucks nor the NBA would comment. When Kohl sold the team last spring, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Kohl had put in place provisions to ensure the team stays put.

"The date is in the provision as part of the sale agreement," the source said. "It's written as such. When you get to the point where (a new arena) is not going to happen, (moving) will have to be discussed at that point."

There is no shortage of cities waiting to become one of 30 with an NBA franchise: Las Vegas, Kansas City, Louisville and Seattle have been mentioned as suitors, even new markets in Canada. And there seems to be no shortage of wealthy people willing to secure a franchise; Steve Ballmer paid $2 billion for the Los Angeles Clippers.

"Marc and Wes have no intention of moving the team whatsoever," said the source. "But they understand that a new arena is a significant necessity for the ongoing success of the franchise, which is to have a state-of-the-art facility that rivals their counterparts."

'Weak-sister' franchise

As with other professional sports leagues, there is a constant push to keep team facilities up to date. In Milwaukee, the NBA regards the BMO Harris Bradley Center as deficient: There are too few premium seats, the square footage is a fraction of today's NBA arenas, and there are too few revenue-generating amenities.

There is another reason that the NBA wants up-to-date facilities in Milwaukee.

"They don't want a weak-sister franchise," said another source who has experience in the sale and valuation of professional sports teams. "And it affects the value of other teams."

The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings. It also happens to be the third-smallest arena behind those in San Francisco and Sacramento.

"That's not a good place to be," said the source familiar with the purchase agreement.

Both the Warriors and the Kings are on track to build new arenas. The new Golden State Warriors arena, with an estimated cost of $500 million, will be built near the San Francisco Bay Bridge and is expected to be ready for the 2018-'19 season; the Sacramento arena, with an estimated cost of $477 million, is expected to be ready in 2016.

The San Francisco arena is largely privately funded. The Sacramento arena carries a public subsidy estimated at $255 million.

Developing model

A Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce panel has been working to develop a financing model for a new arena, expected to cost between $400 million and $500 million. The MMAC group is working with the Hammes Co., a developer that has a sports development business.

At the same time, Edens, who Lasry said last week is currently running the franchise as its managing partner, has an arena development team in place. At some point, according to Ted Kellner, a new Bucks investor who is chairing the MMAC panel, the two groups will get together and form a plan.

Whatever plan surfaces likely will have to wait until after the November elections and when the state Legislature returns in late January, says Timothy Sheehy, MMAC's president.

Sheehy said he was not privy to the terms of the purchase agreement, but said he believed the NBA is serious about a deadline for a new arena. So does Mayor Tom Barrett.

"But I view this less as a deadline and more as a starting line for a catalytic development downtown spurred by the need for a new arena," Sheehy said. "That's our focus."

Putting a team on notice to build a new arena or face the possibility of moving is not new. The effort to build a new arena in Sacramento dates to 1996, when then-Kings owner Jim Thomas proposed a new arena to replace the Arco Arena.

Brewers implied threat

The implied threat of moving a team is also not new in Milwaukee. In 1996, before a stadium financing package to build Miller Park was reached, then-Milwaukee Brewers president Bud Selig, who simultaneously held the position of interim baseball commissioner, had publicly said the Brewers could move.

In April 1996, then-Gov. Tommy Thompson said Selig had never said anything about moving the team to him personally, but angrily noted he would back away from any deal if a threat was made.

Would Milwaukee be given such leeway if the expected political and community debate and discussion take years rather than months?

"It's on a case-by-case basis," the source familiar with the sale said.

Barrett said that, in anticipation of the 2017 deadline, city officials are studying several sites that could be the new home for the Bucks and other tenants, including the Milwaukee Admirals, the Marquette University men's basketball team, and other entertainment.

A number of sites are under consideration. Barrett has said he would like to see an arena as close to W. Wisconsin Ave. as possible. A lot at N. 4th and W. Wisconsin Ave. is available, but city officials and others knowledgeable about that site say it would be a tight fit even with the acquisition of additional property.

Others have suggested tearing down the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Panther Arena, the new name for the old Milwaukee Arena. That building, the annex just west of the arena, and the Milwaukee Theatre would accommodate a new arena.

But Franklyn Gimbel, the longtime chairman of the Wisconsin Center District, said he opposes tearing down the buildings. UWM just signed a 10-year partnership with the Wisconsin Center District board to use the arena for its men's basketball team, although the school can opt out of the deal should the arena be designated for the new arena site.

A site just north of the BMO Harris Bradley Center, between N. 4th and N. 6th streets and adjoining W. Juneau Ave., also is under consideration. BMO Harris Bradley Center officials say the site is just big enough for an NBA-style arena.

Both Edens and Lasry, as well as Sheehy, have said some form of public financing will be needed to raise enough money to build the arena. How much the public will be asked to contribute and in what form — a sales tax, a tax incremental financing arrangement or, perhaps, diverting the income tax paid by NBA players and front-office personnel to pay off debt service — has not been determined.

What makes Milwaukee's case different is the $100 million Edens and Lasry have committed to a new arena. In addition, former senator Herb Kohl has committed another $100 million. And there is anticipation that additional private investment will be found.

But there is pushback, too. County boards in Ozaukee, Waukesha and Racine counties, still chafing over the 0.1% Miller Park stadium sales tax, have gone on record against any public taxation for a new arena or expanded convention center.

[Texas Western]

Arena construction — not just plans — linked to Bucks lease
By Don Walker
Sept. 6, 2014

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/arena-construction--not-just-plans--linked-to-bucks-lease-b99346176z1-274230051.html


Under terms of the Bucks sale, construction of an arena to replace the BMO Harris Bradley Center must be underway by Oct. 1, 2017 — or the NBA will step in.



The National Basketball Association has Milwaukee Bucks owners Marc Lasry and Wes Edens on the clock.

Under terms of Herb Kohl's $550 million sale of the team to Lasry and Edens, groundbreaking and construction of a new arena are linked to the expiration of the Bucks' current lease at the BMO Harris Bradley Center, according to a source familiar with the deal. The lease expires Oct. 1, 2017.

That's a more compact — and firm — timetable than had been understood in the immediate wake of the sale, when it was reported that plans for an arena had to be in place by November 2017.

If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.

Neither the Bucks nor the NBA would comment. When Kohl sold the team last spring, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Kohl had put in place provisions to ensure the team stays put.

"The date is in the provision as part of the sale agreement," the source said. "It's written as such. When you get to the point where (a new arena) is not going to happen, (moving) will have to be discussed at that point."

There is no shortage of cities waiting to become one of 30 with an NBA franchise: Las Vegas, Kansas City, Louisville and Seattle have been mentioned as suitors, even new markets in Canada. And there seems to be no shortage of wealthy people willing to secure a franchise; Steve Ballmer paid $2 billion for the Los Angeles Clippers.

"Marc and Wes have no intention of moving the team whatsoever," said the source. "But they understand that a new arena is a significant necessity for the ongoing success of the franchise, which is to have a state-of-the-art facility that rivals their counterparts."

'Weak-sister' franchise

As with other professional sports leagues, there is a constant push to keep team facilities up to date. In Milwaukee, the NBA regards the BMO Harris Bradley Center as deficient: There are too few premium seats, the square footage is a fraction of today's NBA arenas, and there are too few revenue-generating amenities.

There is another reason that the NBA wants up-to-date facilities in Milwaukee.

"They don't want a weak-sister franchise," said another source who has experience in the sale and valuation of professional sports teams. "And it affects the value of other teams."

The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings. It also happens to be the third-smallest arena behind those in San Francisco and Sacramento.

"That's not a good place to be," said the source familiar with the purchase agreement.

Both the Warriors and the Kings are on track to build new arenas. The new Golden State Warriors arena, with an estimated cost of $500 million, will be built near the San Francisco Bay Bridge and is expected to be ready for the 2018-'19 season; the Sacramento arena, with an estimated cost of $477 million, is expected to be ready in 2016.

The San Francisco arena is largely privately funded. The Sacramento arena carries a public subsidy estimated at $255 million.

Developing model

A Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce panel has been working to develop a financing model for a new arena, expected to cost between $400 million and $500 million. The MMAC group is working with the Hammes Co., a developer that has a sports development business.

At the same time, Edens, who Lasry said last week is currently running the franchise as its managing partner, has an arena development team in place. At some point, according to Ted Kellner, a new Bucks investor who is chairing the MMAC panel, the two groups will get together and form a plan.

Whatever plan surfaces likely will have to wait until after the November elections and when the state Legislature returns in late January, says Timothy Sheehy, MMAC's president.

Sheehy said he was not privy to the terms of the purchase agreement, but said he believed the NBA is serious about a deadline for a new arena. So does Mayor Tom Barrett.

"But I view this less as a deadline and more as a starting line for a catalytic development downtown spurred by the need for a new arena," Sheehy said. "That's our focus."

Putting a team on notice to build a new arena or face the possibility of moving is not new. The effort to build a new arena in Sacramento dates to 1996, when then-Kings owner Jim Thomas proposed a new arena to replace the Arco Arena.

Brewers implied threat

The implied threat of moving a team is also not new in Milwaukee. In 1996, before a stadium financing package to build Miller Park was reached, then-Milwaukee Brewers president Bud Selig, who simultaneously held the position of interim baseball commissioner, had publicly said the Brewers could move.

In April 1996, then-Gov. Tommy Thompson said Selig had never said anything about moving the team to him personally, but angrily noted he would back away from any deal if a threat was made.

Would Milwaukee be given such leeway if the expected political and community debate and discussion take years rather than months?

"It's on a case-by-case basis," the source familiar with the sale said.

Barrett said that, in anticipation of the 2017 deadline, city officials are studying several sites that could be the new home for the Bucks and other tenants, including the Milwaukee Admirals, the Marquette University men's basketball team, and other entertainment.

A number of sites are under consideration. Barrett has said he would like to see an arena as close to W. Wisconsin Ave. as possible. A lot at N. 4th and W. Wisconsin Ave. is available, but city officials and others knowledgeable about that site say it would be a tight fit even with the acquisition of additional property.

Others have suggested tearing down the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Panther Arena, the new name for the old Milwaukee Arena. That building, the annex just west of the arena, and the Milwaukee Theatre would accommodate a new arena.

But Franklyn Gimbel, the longtime chairman of the Wisconsin Center District, said he opposes tearing down the buildings. UWM just signed a 10-year partnership with the Wisconsin Center District board to use the arena for its men's basketball team, although the school can opt out of the deal should the arena be designated for the new arena site.

A site just north of the BMO Harris Bradley Center, between N. 4th and N. 6th streets and adjoining W. Juneau Ave., also is under consideration. BMO Harris Bradley Center officials say the site is just big enough for an NBA-style arena.

Both Edens and Lasry, as well as Sheehy, have said some form of public financing will be needed to raise enough money to build the arena. How much the public will be asked to contribute and in what form — a sales tax, a tax incremental financing arrangement or, perhaps, diverting the income tax paid by NBA players and front-office personnel to pay off debt service — has not been determined.

What makes Milwaukee's case different is the $100 million Edens and Lasry have committed to a new arena. In addition, former senator Herb Kohl has committed another $100 million. And there is anticipation that additional private investment will be found.

But there is pushback, too. County boards in Ozaukee, Waukesha and Racine counties, still chafing over the 0.1% Miller Park stadium sales tax, have gone on record against any public taxation for a new arena or expanded convention center.

Unfortunately , there is a lot of small thinking in Milwaukee.  This new arena should be a no brainer. I believe it is not necessary, but the NBA makes the rules and the franchises have to go along with them.  All the downtown locations are great for us. The n 4th and W. Wisconsin would be fantastic.

Marquette could get in the act by allowing them to build the new stadium at Valley Fields. In exchange the city condemns an equivalent sized plot of land directly north of campus and we recreate our athletic fields there. Of course there would be a political out cry but I think it could get done if some of the housing was recreated around the new stadium.

[TedBaxter]

The blocks between Wisconsin and Michigan Avenues are too small unless you are going to terminate Michigan Avenue for a block to build the arena.  The best place to build it is just north of the Bradley Center by vacating Juneau for a block.

[mu_hilltopper]

If I had to place a bet, I would bet the farm on it not happening in 2017. 

[Tugg Speedman]

If I had to place a bet, I would bet the farm on it not happening in 2017. 

From the story above ....

If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.

[kmwtrucks]

I think with the clipper selling double what people felt they are worth, That more then likely the NBA would buy back the Team if they are going to relocate it so they can control the price and the buyer's and what city gets it.   So that would mean the buyer's now would end up not making any money after 3 years of owning the team so they have a huge interest in getting a new stadium done.  So my guess is they throw in more like 200 mil to go along with Herbs 100Mil or about 60% coming from private investment.  I think if the public funding is only 200 mil I think it gets done.   The fact that they opened with 200mil of 40% of private funding means they have quite a bit of room to throw in more. 

[martyconlonontherun]

From the story above ....

If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.

It gives the owners a financial incentive to make sure a stadium gets done. They didn't spend $550 to only get back $25 a few years later. With the new TV contracts and revenue sharing, I could see this team being worth $800M+ by that time.

[The Equalizer]

The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings.

More sloppy reporting.

First off, Madison Square Garden is also older. 

Also, per wikipedia, the Kings arena technically opened a month after the Bradley Center (11/8/1988 for Arco/Sleep Train versus 10/1/1988 for BMO Harris), but the Palace at Auburn Hills actually opened about two months earlier (8/13/1988). 

So the older arenas are the Oracle Arena (Oakland) opened in 1966, MSG in 1968, and The Palace of Auburn Hills.

 

[MUMonster03]

The age isn't really the reason for needing a new arena. It's the amenities and premium seating. Even though the Palace was built the same year it was built with forward thinking in mind. They built in that ability to add more luxury boxes and other amenities which is what they have done over the years and have been able to keep the arena up to current standards. MSG just went through its second or third multi million dollar renovations to accomplish the same type of things.

The Kings and Bucks arenas were not built with this changeable design and therefore are out of date 25+ years after opening.

The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings.

More sloppy reporting.

First off, Madison Square Garden is also older. 

Also, per wikipedia, the Kings arena technically opened a month after the Bradley Center (11/8/1988 for Arco/Sleep Train versus 10/1/1988 for BMO Harris), but the Palace at Auburn Hills actually opened about two months earlier (8/13/1988). 

So the older arenas are the Oracle Arena (Oakland) opened in 1966, MSG in 1968, and The Palace of Auburn Hills.

 

[MUMonster03]

From the story above ....

If a new arena is not ready for play in three years, the deal contractually allows the NBA to buy the team back for an estimated $575 million. That, in turn, creates the possibility that the team, which has called Milwaukee home since 1968, could move to a market waiting to snap it up.

The question then becomes if they do move is what does Marquette do? I think we would be fine with a 14,000 to 15,000 seat arena but where do we build it and how do we get it financed. Not sure how much a city would kick in even if they made it dual purpose for the Admirals since we are a private institution.

We could stay in the Bradley Center for a while but without a NBA team putting money into the place it could quickly just become a larger version of the arena and look outdated and old very quickly.

[Benny B]

The question then becomes if they do move is what does Marquette do? I think we would be fine with a 14,000 to 15,000 seat arena but where do we build it and how do we get it financed. Not sure how much a city would kick in even if they made it dual purpose for the Admirals since we are a private institution.

We could stay in the Bradley Center for a while but without a NBA team putting money into the place it could quickly just become a larger version of the arena and look outdated and old very quickly.

If the Bucks move, I would bet 100x my annual B&G donation that MU builds an on-campus arena eventually.  MU will ride out the BC as long as it can, but at some point, they will have their hand forced as without an NBA tenant, the BC is going to become the US Cellular Arena North.

Certainly, this doesn't happen by 2017, but I bet the fundraisers are already eying plans for a campaign to launch as soon as Wojo brings home a natty.

[kmwtrucks]

I'm sure MU would prefer to not be involved in the investment but we could put some money in.  How much would it be worth MU per year to have a new stadium that would be around for 30 years?  1Mil per year?  It would be extra revenue for us as well with more luxury and lower level seating.  It would help our Bball team which helps Fund raising and Gets us tons of Free Press and adverting.  in the last 10-12 years we have had the best run for basketball since the 70's and the schools national rating has gone up with that.  The oldest I could find said in 2003 we rose to 91 per MU's annual report where now we have been in the 70's the last 3-4 years.  15 spots is a pretty solid jump in 8-10 years for a private school when most were probably moving down.  MU would be hurt in a major way if a new stadium is not built. both athletically, financially, and academically.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third-oldest arena in the 30-team NBA, behind current arenas in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, and Sacramento for the Kings.

More sloppy reporting.

First off, Madison Square Garden is also older. 

Also, per wikipedia, the Kings arena technically opened a month after the Bradley Center (11/8/1988 for Arco/Sleep Train versus 10/1/1988 for BMO Harris), but the Palace at Auburn Hills actually opened about two months earlier (8/13/1988). 

So the older arenas are the Oracle Arena (Oakland) opened in 1966, MSG in 1968, and The Palace of Auburn Hills.

 

Not sure age is the most relevant thing here (per above posts).... The Palace is absolutely beautiful, and been kept up-to-date with pretty regular renovations and additions the past 10 or so years.

[source?]

Now is the worst time to ask MU to contribute to a new arena. Until the P5 autonomy issue is completely settled, and we see how things shake out, it would be unwise to invest a bunch of money into an arena (plus, the BC works fine for college ball). I think the arena will get built, and I like that because I like having an NBA team in town. However, I look at the new DePaul arena that they are paying HALF the cost of and I see a team that is getting screwed. They will still have to pay rent and such (although I believe they are the preferred tenant for scheduling purposes). I don't see that much benefit for MU.

[MDMU04]

The photo caption states that construction must be underway by October 1, 2017. Later in the article, it states that if the arena is not ready for play in three years, the NBA can buy back the team.

If construction is started as late as October 2017, there is no way an arena could be completed in one year from a brownfield construction site without substantial additional cost to expedite schedule. It's just not feasible.

A more realistic timeline would be to have construction started some time in 2016 for a November 2018 opening date. At this point, the land hasn't even been purchased and it's almost 2015. The likelihood of purchasing the land, getting necessary permits, securing financing for construction from a private source - let alone public - in that short a time is slim.

This is a mechanism for the NBA to purchase and relocate the Bucks, not to have a new arena built. This is actually a fairly brilliant move by the new owners. The risk that they assumed for taking on the slim probability of having a new arena built from scratch in three years is a $25MM return on their investment, while the NBA assumes all the downside.

[Litehouse]

Golden State's arena also underwent a massive renovation in 1997 in which they basically rebuilt the entire interior.

[Benny B]

I'm sure MU would prefer to not be involved in the investment but we could put some money in.  How much would it be worth MU per year to have a new stadium that would be around for 30 years?  1Mil per year?  It would be extra revenue for us as well with more luxury and lower level seating.  It would help our Bball team which helps Fund raising and Gets us tons of Free Press and adverting.  in the last 10-12 years we have had the best run for basketball since the 70's and the schools national rating has gone up with that.  The oldest I could find said in 2003 we rose to 91 per MU's annual report where now we have been in the 70's the last 3-4 years.  15 spots is a pretty solid jump in 8-10 years for a private school when most were probably moving down.  MU would be hurt in a major way if a new stadium is not built. both athletically, financially, and academically.

A million$/year just for the privilege of paying rent seems like a pretty steep cost.  An even greater question is if the WI-DOR steps in, will they still be able to pick their exact timeslots.

[MDMU04]

What will probably happen:

Bucks owners move on a public timeline to have a new arena built by the start of the 2018 season. All of the legwork will be done to hit the groundbreaking by the October 2017 deadline with a completely infeasible schedule to have construction completed by November 2018.

About 5 or 6 months after the start of construction, reports will start to come out about construction delays, issues with site conditions, weather, etc. After several of the major payment milestones are hit, the project will be so far behind the 2018 schedule that the owners will have to delay the opening of the arena by a year.

By that point, the project will be too far along to abandon without the NBA and the owners having to go through an extremely extensive and expensive litigation process. The Bucks will play an additional season in the BC under some sort of extended lease and the arena will be finished for the 2019 season.

[MU82]

If the Bucks play in a new, larger arena full of amenities and premium-price seats, are there enough corporate partners and fans who would pay the premium prices and come close to filling a 20,000-seat arena?

It's a serious question, because I no longer live anywhere near Milwaukee and am wondering how this would fly.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Unfortunately , there is a lot of small thinking in Milwaukee.  This new arena should be a no brainer. I believe it is not necessary, but the NBA makes the rules and the franchises have to go along with them.  All the downtown locations are great for us. The n 4th and W. Wisconsin would be fantastic.

Marquette could get in the act by allowing them to build the new stadium at Valley Fields. In exchange the city condemns an equivalent sized plot of land directly north of campus and we recreate our athletic fields there. Of course there would be a political out cry but I think it could get done if some of the housing was recreated around the new stadium.

I'd argue that putting up another arena out of fear is small thinking.

If a new arena is part of a bigger growth strategy for Milwaukee, then I'm listening.

If a new arena is just a strategy to keep a pro-basketball team, then it's stupid. Let them leave. The city can get far more bang for it's buck elsewhere.

[Galway Eagle]

First why do you guys not want to play in a new arena? I think that'd be a huge advantage to MU. Young kids care about tradition sure but I'd wager they'd be a heck of a lot more impressed with a brand new shiny arena.  Also if we built our own wouldn't we be unable to drink beer at games per NCAA rules? I'm sorry but if that's the case I'd rather play on a court in miller park if we have to.

[Chili]

If the Bucks play in a new, larger arena full of amenities and premium-price seats, are there enough corporate partners and fans who would pay the premium prices and come close to filling a 20,000-seat arena?

It's a serious question, because I no longer live anywhere near Milwaukee and am wondering how this would fly.

No reason it would have to be 20k. The new arena in the Bay Area is going to be smaller but just do it right. I am thinking that is the way Milwaukee would head.

[Dawson Rental]

The photo caption states that construction must be underway by October 1, 2017. Later in the article, it states that if the arena is not ready for play in three years, the NBA can buy back the team.

If construction is started as late as October 2017, there is no way an arena could be completed in one year from a brownfield construction site without substantial additional cost to expedite schedule. It's just not feasible.

A more realistic timeline would be to have construction started some time in 2016 for a November 2018 opening date. At this point, the land hasn't even been purchased and it's almost 2015. The likelihood of purchasing the land, getting necessary permits, securing financing for construction from a private source - let alone public - in that short a time is slim.

This is a mechanism for the NBA to purchase and relocate the Bucks, not to have a new arena built. This is actually a fairly brilliant move by the new owners. The risk that they assumed for taking on the slim probability of having a new arena built from scratch in three years is a $25MM return on their investment, while the NBA assumes all the downside.

Brilliant move?  Call me greedy, but when I'm investing $550 million, I'm looking for at least a 2% per year return.

[kmwtrucks]

I agree I'm sure MU would rather just pay rent.  But if Bucks move the bradley center will start looking like the rosemont horizon.  Building our own stadium in 2020 will cost us 150 million for 12,000 seats.   A 17-18K brand new arena would look and be incredible for recruiting.  I'm just pointing out how much it would hurt MU if it does not happen.  I think 1 MIL is accurate so if we have to put 1/2 that money in 15 mil (We could get it back in reduced rent for the life of the building) It would make allot of sense.  There is nothing wrong with becoming partners with the landlords and nothing wrong with making good business decisions as a University.   Where else in the school could you invest 15 mil and generate a extra 1.5 mil a year in revenue?

[MDMU04]

Brilliant move?  Call me greedy, but when I'm investing $550 million, I'm looking for at least a 2% per year return.

It's all about risk management. The NBA assumes the risk of buying the franchise back and operating it while trying to sell it. The worst exposure to risk is that the new owner faces is they make $25MM should the deal fall through.

Yes, I would call that pretty brilliant.