collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 03:24:20 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:13 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by BrewCity83
[Today at 03:23:55 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Uncle Rico
[Today at 03:05:12 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by tower912
[Today at 02:40:05 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by Jay Bee
[Today at 02:05:40 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?  (Read 112627 times)

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #200 on: September 17, 2014, 12:04:36 PM »
It shows how ass backwards MKE "vision" has been in the past - just as it continues to be at present, considering as a city it is potentially going to let a pro sports franchise walk over not being willing to kick in $200M, while private money kicks in $400M or ~66% of money necessary to build an arena.

Had MKE put the Brewers stadium downtown, it then could have served as a natural place for a new basketball arena to be placed next to (at some point down the road)  Perhaps if the city had vision 15 years ago and realized at some point the Bradley Center would likely need to be replaced, they could have envisioned a scenario where at one point both stadiums are next to each other and parking lots would benefit both - Basketball season from Nov-May, Baseball picking up from April-October....lots of synergy by both, and now you have 122 nights of entertainment in downtown MKE instead of just 41.  LIkely would have spurred more young professionals to want to live downtown, more incidental attendance would have occurred at downtown Brewers stadium from all of the population density around downtown as it is.

I'm still waiting for you to share your vision as to what scenario you would want to see offered up by the city for it to make sense for it to invest the $200M you just can't seem to wrap your head around at present as to how that would be a worthwhile investment.

BTW - What kind of work do you do?  

I don't disagree about a lack of vision and planning in Milwaukee. A downtown ballpark would have been interesting.

Truthfully, I'm glad the ballpark is where it is though. I think it's somewhat unique to have a stadium that IS NOT downtown, and I think the tailgating is a big cultural draw for people. But, tailgating doesn't generate the revenue that bars and restaurants would. I can see both sides of the coin. I don't have an reports or studies to argue it either way.

As far as my plan for 200million? I have no idea. MY POINT, is that arenas might not be the big economic driver that we are led to believe, and I'm not really interested in handing out 200million without a significant payback on the back end. 

We're told that an arena is a huge economic win for the city, right? Well, the BC has plenty of undeveloped property surrounding it. If the Buck and an arena are such huge economic drivers, shouldn't that property all be developed by now? It's been 25 years.

River rat

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #201 on: September 17, 2014, 12:34:28 PM »
I don't disagree about a lack of vision and planning in Milwaukee. A downtown ballpark would have been interesting.

Truthfully, I'm glad the ballpark is where it is though. I think it's somewhat unique to have a stadium that IS NOT downtown, and I think the tailgating is a big cultural draw for people. But, tailgating doesn't generate the revenue that bars and restaurants would. I can see both sides of the coin. I don't have an reports or studies to argue it either way.

As far as my plan for 200million? I have no idea. MY POINT, is that arenas might not be the big economic driver that we are led to believe, and I'm not really interested in handing out 200million without a significant payback on the back end. 

We're told that an arena is a huge economic win for the city, right? Well, the BC has plenty of undeveloped property surrounding it. If the Buck and an arena are such huge economic drivers, shouldn't that property all be developed by now? It's been 25 years.

its alot of money thats for sure but I think As MU fans, MU basketball would be hurt without an NBA team here.  I think we can all agree on this?

Also as one smaller point.  The area is tremendously developed realtive to what it would look like if the arenas did not exist.  I may be wrong but I dont think Goolsbies, Bucks, or any of the other restaurants would be there or have the business they do.  Additionally having been in many of the hotels before and after NBA and collge games theybenefit tremndously as well.

More to your point, I beleive of the areas directly north of the stadium not being as developed, it is my own personal opinion that alot of that has to do with the design of the stadium.  the majority of the people are funnelled in and out on the east and south sides of the stadium.  getting into and out of the the nortwest corner of the stadium is next to impossible and current design makes it next to impossible for anyone to go to a restaurant/bar on the northwest corner of the stadium (if they existed) to then get into the stadium pre game or out post game on foot

4everwarriors

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #202 on: September 17, 2014, 12:42:46 PM »
The lack of vision present in Milwaukee is evidenced by choosing to put Miller Park in parking lot of old County Stadium and not downtown.

Virtually every new basketball arena, baseball stadium and football stadium (other than Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, TX) has been built in downtown areas in the last 20 years.

Should have put Miller Park in the vacant lot right across from the bars on Water Street.  Can't imagine how nice of experience it could have been sitting in upper deck at stadium placed there being able to look out over downtown MKE and also get views of Lake Michigan. 

Blah blah blah about the whole tailgating thing - there could have been a dedicated tailgating lot downtwon, where fans could have been charged a premium to park in/use - But, taligating wouldn't be such a necessity as it was at County Stadium (since there is and was absolutely ZERO eating options around County Stadium/Miller Park.

The restaurants downtown would have been a hell of a lot more impacted by placing Miller Park there, than in a vacant lot in the middle of nowhere.  People tailgating spend their money at a grocery store for their tailgate food, and not at the bars and restaurants they otherwise would if they were in a downtown stadium location.  That is just 1 reason why and how an arena/stadium placed in the right place can impact economic growth.





Couldn't agree more wit chew, but Buddy demanded a captive audience for all the crap he was sellin'. Nothin' like the greatest good for the greatest number, hey?
"Give 'Em Hell, Al"

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #203 on: September 17, 2014, 01:05:34 PM »
its alot of money thats for sure but I think As MU fans, MU basketball would be hurt without an NBA team here.  I think we can all agree on this?

Also as one smaller point.  The area is tremendously developed realtive to what it would look like if the arenas did not exist.  I may be wrong but I dont think Goolsbies, Bucks, or any of the other restaurants would be there or have the business they do.  Additionally having been in many of the hotels before and after NBA and collge games theybenefit tremndously as well.

More to your point, I beleive of the areas directly north of the stadium not being as developed, it is my own personal opinion that alot of that has to do with the design of the stadium.  the majority of the people are funnelled in and out on the east and south sides of the stadium.  getting into and out of the the nortwest corner of the stadium is next to impossible and current design makes it next to impossible for anyone to go to a restaurant/bar on the northwest corner of the stadium (if they existed) to then get into the stadium pre game or out post game on foot

First of all, we can't all agree that MU would be hurt (at least in a material way) without an NBA team here. In a sense, they would be helped, as Marquette would be the only source of quality hoops in Milwaukee. People who go to a couple of Bucks games a year simply because they like basketball might switch to Marquette.

Also, regarding the pedestrian traffic pattern deterring development to the north, look at that Google Earth view again.  Almost all of the parking (structures, lots, and off-street), is North and West of the BC.  People go over to 3rd street because that's where the bars and restaurants are.  If some good places opened up Northwest of the BC, people would go there.  It wouldn't be out of anyone's way unless you are taking the bus home.
Have some patience, FFS.

Litehouse

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #204 on: September 17, 2014, 01:32:44 PM »
I thought the Park East land also had a lot of restrictions and regulations on potential development, which made it more difficult to build there.

River rat

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #205 on: September 17, 2014, 01:40:45 PM »
First of all, we can't all agree that MU would be hurt (at least in a material way) without an NBA team here. In a sense, they would be helped, as Marquette would be the only source of quality hoops in Milwaukee. People who go to a couple of Bucks games a year simply because they like basketball might switch to Marquette.

Also, regarding the pedestrian traffic pattern deterring development to the north, look at that Google Earth view again.  Almost all of the parking (structures, lots, and off-street), is North and West of the BC.  People go over to 3rd street because that's where the bars and restaurants are.  If some good places opened up Northwest of the BC, people would go there.  It wouldn't be out of anyone's way unless you are taking the bus home.


u do understand that without a pro franchise we would still be playing in the old gym correct?  or some glorified version of the Al.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #206 on: September 17, 2014, 01:42:59 PM »
its alot of money thats for sure but I think As MU fans, MU basketball would be hurt without an NBA team here.  I think we can all agree on this?

Also as one smaller point.  The area is tremendously developed realtive to what it would look like if the arenas did not exist.  I may be wrong but I dont think Goolsbies, Bucks, or any of the other restaurants would be there or have the business they do.  Additionally having been in many of the hotels before and after NBA and collge games theybenefit tremndously as well.

More to your point, I beleive of the areas directly north of the stadium not being as developed, it is my own personal opinion that alot of that has to do with the design of the stadium.  the majority of the people are funnelled in and out on the east and south sides of the stadium.  getting into and out of the the nortwest corner of the stadium is next to impossible and current design makes it next to impossible for anyone to go to a restaurant/bar on the northwest corner of the stadium (if they existed) to then get into the stadium pre game or out post game on foot

You're right, and to be fair, the BC and the Bucks certainly help 3rd st., water st., and some hotel traffic. No doubt in my mind.

But, my overall point is, people act like a new arena is some sort of magic economic bullet, and I'm just not sure that it is.

A dozen bars and some hotel traffic 41 nights per year isn't exactly a 200million dollar impact on the economy. Most of the people employed by the BC are part time. Nice part-time jobs, but again, I'm not sure those type of jobs are really what we want from this size investment.

The players pay tons in taxes and property taxes, but I don't think many (if any) live in the city, so I don't think we can count much on that.

I'm not against the idea of a new arena, I just need somebody to clearly explain how it's going to help the city, and even explain why it's going to help more than the BC has. BC 2.0 isn't going to cut it.

Moving the arena to Grand Ave is actually an interesting idea, but then they need to illustrate what is going back into the current BC's neighborhood to help it grow. Otherwise, they are just moving around the deck chairs, and that's not growth, that's redistribution that will get sold to us as "growth".

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #207 on: September 17, 2014, 01:52:52 PM »
u do understand that without a pro franchise we would still be playing in the old gym correct?  or some glorified version of the Al.


I was mostly referring to going forward.  And even without the Bucks, there would be a better facility in Milwaukee than the Al.  Every city has at least one big arena of some sort, even if it's only for concerts and monster truck shows.  And don't forget the BC was built with Hockey money.
Have some patience, FFS.

dgies9156

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #208 on: September 17, 2014, 03:14:46 PM »
And don't forget the BC was built with Hockey money.

Wrong-o Kimosabe.

The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.

Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.

By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #209 on: September 17, 2014, 04:02:47 PM »
Wrong-o Kimosabe.

The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.

Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.

By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.

I hear you.  But it still confirms my main point, which is that the reason that the reason we don't play in a "glorified version of The Al" has nothing to do with having a pro franchise.
Have some patience, FFS.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #210 on: September 18, 2014, 09:15:56 AM »
Wrong-o Kimosabe.

The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.

Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.

By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.

Are you implying that Lloyd's desire to build the BC resulted solely and directly as a result of 80s tax law.  If so, I don't see how that is any more accurate than Chick's implication that hockey money built the BC.

At best, it's a correlation... but claiming that tax liability was the force behind the BC is like saying that Marquette Basketball is the best team ever in the Big East because of its historical W-L record.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #211 on: September 18, 2014, 09:50:54 AM »
Wrong-o Kimosabe.

The Bradley Center was built with Allen-Bradley money. When A-B sold out to Rockwell, the Pettit family had a major tax problem. Giving the arena to the city of Milwaukee was a way out of the tax problem.

Be grateful to the Pettits for their gift... oh and be grateful to the tax laws that existed in the 1980s.

By the way, Lloyd Pettit did want hockey locally. But hockey didn't drive the Bradley Center. Tax liability did.

IIRC there was a push to score one of the NHL expansion franchises of the era, but with increased demand for NHL teams, the NHL upped the buy-in and priced out the prospective ownership group in Milwaukee. That left the BC which is clearly built to be a hockey arena with only a minor league hockey team to be its tenant.

If hockey were not a player in the construction of the BC, its design would be different.

martyconlonontherun

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #212 on: September 18, 2014, 10:33:12 AM »
You're right, and to be fair, the BC and the Bucks certainly help 3rd st., water st., and some hotel traffic. No doubt in my mind.

But, my overall point is, people act like a new arena is some sort of magic economic bullet, and I'm just not sure that it is.

A dozen bars and some hotel traffic 41 nights per year isn't exactly a 200million dollar impact on the economy. Most of the people employed by the BC are part time. Nice part-time jobs, but again, I'm not sure those type of jobs are really what we want from this size investment.

I don't think you can limit it to the Bucks games (which probably averages 45 games {playoffs and preseasons}). Add in concerts, etc. that we wouldn't get without an updated arena. The Bradley Center drew about 1.5 million to 167 different events in 2011. I think $200M may be on the high-end. Going rate of a stadium is $450M. $200M pitched in by owners, $75M for naming rights, add in whatever MU or private investors pay.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #213 on: September 18, 2014, 10:51:26 AM »
I don't think you can limit it to the Bucks games (which probably averages 45 games {playoffs and preseasons}). Add in concerts, etc. that we wouldn't get without an updated arena. The Bradley Center drew about 1.5 million to 167 different events in 2011. I think $200M may be on the high-end. Going rate of a stadium is $450M. $200M pitched in by owners, $75M for naming rights, add in whatever MU or private investors pay.

Certainly there are more than just Bucks events, but right now, they are really the ones demanding a new arena. I think the Globetrotters, Admirals, MU and Celine Dione can all still live with the BC.

I'd question the whole "won't get concerts" scenario.

The reality is, if Nickleback can sell out on a Wed. in Milwaukee, they will consider including it on their tour. I'm not sure how much a shiny new arena changes that. Is there a case study or industry average?

Also, did BMO really pay $75million for naming rights? I didn't realize that was the going rate. Nice.



jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1358
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #214 on: September 18, 2014, 11:37:22 AM »
God Nickleback is awful. I hope for Milwaukee's sake an arena-full of people aren't willing to give them money to see a concert.

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #215 on: September 18, 2014, 11:51:31 AM »
God Nickleback is awful. I hope for Milwaukee's sake an arena-full of people aren't willing to give them money to see a concert.

If it's subsidizing the arena's cost to Marquette's benefit, bring 'em on.  I hope they sell out a week's worth of shows.
Have some patience, FFS.

Skatastrophy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5517
  • ✅ Verified Member
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #216 on: September 18, 2014, 11:57:11 AM »
If it's subsidizing the arena's cost to Marquette's benefit, bring 'em on.  I hope they sell out a week's worth of shows.

You've gone too far on this one.

hairy worthen

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1515
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #217 on: September 18, 2014, 12:49:05 PM »
Certainly there are more than just Bucks events, but right now, they are really the ones demanding a new arena. I think the Globetrotters, Admirals, MU and Celine Dione can all still live with the BC.

I'd question the whole "won't get concerts" scenario.

The reality is, if Nickleback can sell out on a Wed. in Milwaukee, they will consider including it on their tour. I'm not sure how much a shiny new arena changes that. Is there a case study or industry average?

Also, did BMO really pay $75million for naming rights? I didn't realize that was the going rate. Nice.




The BC not drawing concerts was one of the concerns brought up by Marotta. Not sure what the details were. I remember him talking about it and saying they are missing out on big name concerts because the BC is inadequate.  Not that they couldn't sell the concerts out, but that the concert organizers did not want to come to the BC. Too lazy to look it up.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 12:52:43 PM by hairy ellenson »

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #218 on: September 18, 2014, 01:00:17 PM »
The BC not drawing concerts was one of the concerns brought up by Marotta. Not sure what the details were. I remember him talking about it and saying they are missing out on big name concerts because the BC is inadequate.  Not that they couldn't sell the concerts out, but that the concert organizers did not want to come to the BC. Too lazy to look it up.

If that's true, I find it surprising.  It's hard to imagine an act saying, "Yeah, we could sell 15,000 tickets to a show in Milwaukee, but we aren't going to do it because the BC is such a crappy venue."
Have some patience, FFS.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #219 on: September 18, 2014, 01:01:47 PM »
The BC not drawing concerts was one of the concerns brought up by Marotta. Not sure what the details were. I remember him talking about it and saying they are missing out on big name concerts because the BC is an inadequate.  Not that they couldn't sell the concerts out, but that the concert organizers did not want to come to the BC. Too lazy to look it up.

Ya, so maybe I'm an idiot, but I'd challenge Marc on that and ask for what he's specifically referring to.

I've worked with some musicians, tour managers and record labels in my career. While a musician may not like a city, or a venue, they like their money. If they could sell tickets at the north pole, they'd play there.

Now, maybe a new arena would help sell some tickets, so in theory, you'd get Nickleback for 6 nights instead of just 4, but you get the idea. I don't know if the BC is a showstopper/barrier. I'd need more specifics.


hairy worthen

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1515
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #220 on: September 18, 2014, 01:23:22 PM »
Ya, so maybe I'm an idiot, but I'd challenge Marc on that and ask for what he's specifically referring to.

I've worked with some musicians, tour managers and record labels in my career. While a musician may not like a city, or a venue, they like their money. If they could sell tickets at the north pole, they'd play there.

Now, maybe a new arena would help sell some tickets, so in theory, you'd get Nickleback for 6 nights instead of just 4, but you get the idea. I don't know if the BC is a showstopper/barrier. I'd need more specifics.



I looked it up. Specifically he was referring to the concert and entertainment acts needing certain monetary guarantees. The Bradley Center does not have the amenities and luxury seating to guaranty the money the acts demand up front.

B. S. ?  maybe, but that's what he said

 

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #221 on: September 18, 2014, 01:27:10 PM »
IIRC there was a push to score one of the NHL expansion franchises of the era, but with increased demand for NHL teams, the NHL upped the buy-in and priced out the prospective ownership group in Milwaukee. That left the BC which is clearly built to be a hockey arena with only a minor league hockey team to be its tenant.

If hockey were not a player in the construction of the BC, its design would be different.

Little known fact: the NHL's expansion committee conditioned Wisconsin Ice Hockey, Inc.'s acceptance into the league on paying indemnity fees to another NHL team (in excess of $10M on top of the expansion fee), a condition that was not levered on either of the two expansion franchises eventually awarded (Ottawa and Tampa Bay).  Of course, the team WIHI would have had to pay was the Blackhawks, who were adamantly opposed to the NHL being in Milwaukee.  While the argument that the Blackhawks franchise would be materially harmed by an expansion franchise in Milwaukee was laughable, at best, somehow the expansion committee was convinced that the extra fees were necessary.  The epilogue is that Tampa Bay ended up with the franchise instead of Milwaukee.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots between the ownership group who brought the NHL to Tampa Bay (the Esposito brothers), the Blackhawks, and the chairman of the aforementioned expansion committee at the time - who happened to be Bill Wirtz - and realize the role the "buy-in" had in WIHI's withdrawal was minimal.

There was no secret about Lloyd's ambitions as he had been posturing to attract an NHL team to Milwaukee for quite some time, and so there was speculation that his former employer (Wirtz) preemptively jacked the expansion fee to $50M specifically in an effort to dissuade Lloyd from pursuing a franchise.  Publicly, Lloyd complained about the $50M fee, but the rumor was that behind closed doors, Lloyd initially did not balk at the $50M fee, and so Wirtz and his committee ended up firing two more salvos - limiting the list players that would be made available to the expansion franchises, and the indemnity payments - before Lloyd finally resigned himself to the idea that his pursuit of an NHL team was destined to be no more than an exercise in futility.  Despite all of that, Lloyd was the bigger man and refused to throw Bill under the bus for sabotaging his NHL bid.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 01:29:14 PM by Benny B »
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #222 on: September 18, 2014, 01:30:35 PM »

B. S. ?  maybe, but that's what he said

 

Exactly.  How many acts per year are we talking about?  I can't picture too many concertgoers that would demand "luxury seating". Fans of Barbra, perhaps?

Cher was apparently perfectly fine with our sh!tty facility last year.
Have some patience, FFS.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #223 on: September 18, 2014, 01:32:48 PM »
I looked it up. Specifically he was referring to the concert and entertainment acts needing certain monetary guarantees. The Bradley Center does not have the amenities and luxury seating to guaranty the money the acts demand up front.

B. S. ?  maybe, but that's what he said

 

Thanks for looking it up.

I'll have to plead ignorance on the specifics. I don't know all of the ins and outs of luxury seating for concert venues.

Might be true, might be BS.



MU111

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #224 on: September 18, 2014, 02:23:08 PM »
I looked it up. Specifically he was referring to the concert and entertainment acts needing certain monetary guarantees. The Bradley Center does not have the amenities and luxury seating to guaranty the money the acts demand up front.

B. S. ?  maybe, but that's what he said

Is this the one that you're referring to?
http://www.biztimes.com/article/20131125/MAGAZINE03/311219982/0/magazine02

Quote
The loss of the Bucks would also make it harder for the BMO Harris Bradley Center to attract top concerts. The concert industry has become much more competitive than in the Bradley Center's early years, Marotta and Costello said. Previously, artists paid a fee to lease the facility and then kept whatever revenue the concert made. Today, top artists typically demand a revenue guarantee to perform at a venue. Thus the venue takes the risk that the event will generate enough revenue to meet the artists' guarantee and to cover the facility's cost of operations.

The same amenities that the Bucks need to generate more revenue are also needed to generate more revenue for concerts or other events that the Bradley Center competes for with other Midwest venues, Marotta said. And the Bradley Center needs the operating revenue generated by Bucks games to give it the financial security to take risks on providing revenue guarantees to book big name concerts.

I read the whole article cited and it seems to be a bit of fear mongering.  I feel like, though could be wrong, that officials are doing whatever they can to get us to pay for something that might not really be needed in the first place.  That's the problem that I have with this process.

First, we were told that the Bradley Center needs significant upgrades to the tune of $100 million or more.  In the following linked article, Marotta makes ridiculous claims, such as, "That’s going to be a public obligation where...we’re going to have a building that’s going to be crumbling."
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/04/17/bmo-harris-bradley-center-will-need-100m-over-next.html?page=all
It says that officials are excited that Milwaukeeans won't have to pay for these upgrades by building a new arena.  The article conveniently fails to mention O&M for a new arena, and the argument seems to go, "well, we can't afford upkeep for this building so let's tear it down and build one that is even more expensive and will still cost plenty to maintain."

Then, we are told that the Bucks are losing money because we don't have the right seating configuration (upper and lower bowls essentially reversed from newer arenas) and that we don't have the new in-house amenities that other arenas have.  From the first article: "'In 1988, it was good enough to have a great place with a seating bowl,' Costello said. "Now it's about providing a complete social experience for fans, not just sitting and watching an event."  I don't think the Bucks are missing out on revenue because the BC doesn't have the right amenities.  The Bucks are missing out on revenue because they have been a terrible product for the last 25 years.

Next, we are told that, no, renovations are not even an option and that a new arena is required by the end of the current Bradley Center lease in 2017 and that the team will be likely moved if that is not met.  What happened to the renovation option?  We are then told that $200 million is already pledged and that it would be a waste to leave that on the table.  Then, bringing this ramble full-circle, we get allegations like the one above that we couldn't maintain the Bradley Center if the Bucks leave town.

Tl;dr version: I'm all for a new arena if it is privately-funded.  However, we are also getting fed nonsense that we need a new arena because the Bucks are losing money in it.  Kohl bought the team for $19 million, and revenues were supposedly $109 million in 2014, though I'm not sure what expenses were.  That doesn't sound like a financial loser to me.