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

2024 Transfer Portal by MUEng92
[Today at 06:12:30 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by the eagle
[Today at 06:05:16 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Frenns Liquor Depot
[Today at 04:57:21 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by MuMark
[Today at 04:40:13 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by BrewCity83
[Today at 04:40:04 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 04:38:52 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 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 112630 times)

martyconlonontherun

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #225 on: September 18, 2014, 06:32:08 PM »


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

I guess I could avoid the condescending comments if I added more detail. I meant 75m/25yrs. The naming rights for the new BMO Harris deal (plus gate sponsors) is for 3 mil a year. (18 mil over 6) That is for a crappy stadium that they still has the name Bradley in it and that people recognize as the Bradley center despite the new name. I would say that the going rate is around 75 mil to 100 mil for 25 years for a Milwaukee stadium based on recent deals. (4/year for amway and 10/yr for Barclays) Nice?

I just question if the stadium will be kept up to date if the bucks leave. The bucks have paid for most of the improvements in the past. I think there is a decent chance the stadium won't be capable of producing high end concerts.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 06:37:52 PM by martyconlonontherun »

NersEllenson

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6735
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #226 on: September 18, 2014, 09:07:12 PM »
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".

Don't think anyone is suggesting building a new arena is a magic bullet.  I think what most on the side of wanting to build another arena are saying is that there will be a BIG VOID left in the community if MKE loses a pro sports franchise.  That void will be both economically as well as one less civic amenity the community can rally behind (of course when the Bucks are winning.)  You belittle the 41 nights per year of spend that takes place at 12 bars and some hotels - yet what does that translate into over 20 years?  What alternative use of $200M could generate a similar economic return?  We all know the businesses around Cleveland's arena took a HUGE hit when LeBron left. 

You have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have built arenas with tax dollars in the HOPES of luring an NBA team - MKE has a team and seems willing to let the team walk.  Didn't MKE narrowly avoid the Brewers leaving too 15 years ago?  Hell as I recall even the debate for the Packers to get some tax dollar funding for their improvements only won something like 52 to 48?

A team leaves a city and it leaves a hole in the city - economically, absolutely, but also from the standpoint of pride.  Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community.  As for that money being spent elsewhere?  I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.
"I'm not sure Cadougan would fix the problems on this team. I'm not even convinced he would be better for this team than DeWil is."

BrewCity77, December 8, 2013

MU Fan in Connecticut

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3437
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #227 on: September 19, 2014, 07:41:38 AM »
Don't think anyone is suggesting building a new arena is a magic bullet.  I think what most on the side of wanting to build another arena are saying is that there will be a BIG VOID.

A team leaves a city and it leaves a hole in the city - economically, absolutely, but also from the standpoint of pride.  Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community.  As for that money being spent elsewhere?  I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.

Hartford has had a huge hole downtown since my Whalers left.  I've been in protest of the NHL ever-since.

MU111

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #228 on: September 19, 2014, 08:52:25 AM »
Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community.  As for that money being spent elsewhere?  I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.

I discussed this in my last post, but I still think that we, the public, should pushing harder the question as to why we can't just renovate the BC with the $200 million already promised by Kohl, Edens, and Lasry.  I don't want the Bucks to leave either, but I think it's highly unfortunate that we are all being force-fed the idea that a 26-year-old building is suddenly no longer worth having.  The NBA, Bucks, MMAC, and other leaders want us to be arguing about the merits of building a new, very expensive arena, when we should be talking about the one we already have.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #229 on: September 19, 2014, 09:32:39 AM »
Don't think anyone is suggesting building a new arena is a magic bullet.  I think what most on the side of wanting to build another arena are saying is that there will be a BIG VOID left in the community if MKE loses a pro sports franchise.  That void will be both economically as well as one less civic amenity the community can rally behind (of course when the Bucks are winning.)  You belittle the 41 nights per year of spend that takes place at 12 bars and some hotels - yet what does that translate into over 20 years?  What alternative use of $200M could generate a similar economic return?  We all know the businesses around Cleveland's arena took a HUGE hit when LeBron left. 

You have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have built arenas with tax dollars in the HOPES of luring an NBA team - MKE has a team and seems willing to let the team walk.  Didn't MKE narrowly avoid the Brewers leaving too 15 years ago?  Hell as I recall even the debate for the Packers to get some tax dollar funding for their improvements only won something like 52 to 48?

A team leaves a city and it leaves a hole in the city - economically, absolutely, but also from the standpoint of pride.  Building a new arena isn't going to generate all kinds of new revenue - but it without question ensures that the existing revenue being generated isn't leaving the community.  As for that money being spent elsewhere?  I'm not a huge believer in that - that money could be spent on a family choosing to take vacations elsewhere, save at a higher rate, etc. - there are many alternative places that "spend" could occur other than in downtown MKE.

Good post, and I think now we are really getting someplace.

#1 I know the term "magic bullet" is probably an overstatement, but earlier in this thread, people were saying it was "shortsighted" of Milwaukee to not automatically build a new arena for the Bucks. Everybody is just drawn to that "it's good for the city!" motif that the team and politicians want to promote. I'm not against it, but I think we have to examine this closely before we all just say "Build it!"

#2 Losing the Bucks would hurt the city. No doubt. They help with civic pride (as you have stated) and they do have an economic impact... (which I think is overstated by those who want an arena).

#3 In theory, keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee will cost the city approx. 10million per year. That's not counting interest on any sort of loan or TIF. Do the Milwaukee Bucks generate 10mil in value per year to the citizens of Milwaukee?

#4 Cleveland is a great example. They got insanely lucky with Lebron... TWICE. What would that franchise look like without him?  Are the Bucks just hoping they get lucky? What if they are bad for the next 10 years? Does a new arena lead to better performance?

#5 I have no idea what other cities are actively trying to do. Charlotte had a team, then they lost a team, now they have a team. Same for NEO. I don't live in those cities or have any intimate knowledge to know how/why all of that has transpired. Honestly, I don't know.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #230 on: September 19, 2014, 09:34:02 AM »
I guess I could avoid the condescending comments if I added more detail. I meant 75m/25yrs. The naming rights for the new BMO Harris deal (plus gate sponsors) is for 3 mil a year. (18 mil over 6) That is for a crappy stadium that they still has the name Bradley in it and that people recognize as the Bradley center despite the new name. I would say that the going rate is around 75 mil to 100 mil for 25 years for a Milwaukee stadium based on recent deals. (4/year for amway and 10/yr for Barclays) Nice?

I just question if the stadium will be kept up to date if the bucks leave. The bucks have paid for most of the improvements in the past. I think there is a decent chance the stadium won't be capable of producing high end concerts.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to be a dick. I really don't know how much naming rights go for these days.

Let's Go Warriors

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Lets Go Warriors(clap clap clap clap clap)...
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #231 on: September 19, 2014, 09:44:03 AM »
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?

If not have the owners considered attempting to gather money through sponsorship, IE BMO, Harley, NML...

Seems to me that the cart if being placed before the horse.  The city should be approaching this from the other direction.  Lets not attempt to get public financing and then ask the owners.  Lets ask the owners first.  See where they stand.  I thought Kohl sold the team with provisions for keeping it in Milwaukee.  I can not believe he wouldn't have had a clause in case public financing fell through.

I know I wouldn't want to be the politician right now that takes the lead on this public financing.  Because it wont pass a referendum.  The only chance is the politicians go around the public.

IMO public financing should be the LAST resort, yet its the first.

Incidentally I have no idea why it HAS to be downtown.  Especially if they are going to tax the 5 county area again.  Not saying it should be out in the suburbs.  But how about some middle ground.  Maybe out near the casino or Miller park area.

Warrior As defined by Webster's:
A person who fights in battles and is known for having courage and skill

MU111

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #232 on: September 19, 2014, 10:10:03 AM »
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?

If not have the owners considered attempting to gather money through sponsorship, IE BMO, Harley, NML...

Seems to me that the cart if being placed before the horse.  The city should be approaching this from the other direction.  Lets not attempt to get public financing and then ask the owners.  Lets ask the owners first.  See where they stand.  I thought Kohl sold the team with provisions for keeping it in Milwaukee.  I can not believe he wouldn't have had a clause in case public financing fell through.

I know I wouldn't want to be the politician right now that takes the lead on this public financing.  Because it wont pass a referendum.  The only chance is the politicians go around the public.

IMO public financing should be the LAST resort, yet its the first.

Incidentally I have no idea why it HAS to be downtown.  Especially if they are going to tax the 5 county area again.  Not saying it should be out in the suburbs.  But how about some middle ground.  Maybe out near the casino or Miller park area.



Ding, ding, ding.  But why would they pay for the entire thing themselves when they can get the public to pay most of the cost by having the NBA help threaten to move the team if we don't?

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #233 on: September 19, 2014, 10:21:36 AM »
Ding, ding, ding.  But why would they pay for the entire thing themselves when they can get the public to pay most of the cost by having the NBA help threaten to move the team if we don't?

The reality is that the Bucks franchise - be it located in Milwaukee, Seattle, or Las Vegas three years from now - will be playing in an arena that's at least partially funded [read: not mostly funded] by public sources.  If Milwaukee wants to compete - which it does - then it needs to pony up something for the cause.  Otherwise, adios Buckos.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Let's Go Warriors

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
  • Lets Go Warriors(clap clap clap clap clap)...
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #234 on: September 19, 2014, 10:31:04 AM »
Ding, ding, ding.  But why would they pay for the entire thing themselves when they can get the public to pay most of the cost by having the NBA help threaten to move the team if we don't?

I totally agree, but seems to me a motivated journalist could get a good discussion going on this.  Rather than the puff that's out there right now that only discusses public financing.  Turn the table on these cats.
Warrior As defined by Webster's:
A person who fights in battles and is known for having courage and skill

MU111

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #235 on: September 19, 2014, 10:39:01 AM »
I totally agree, but seems to me a motivated journalist could get a good discussion going on this.  Rather than the puff that's out there right now that only discusses public financing.  Turn the table on these cats.

You're absolutely right.  If you're interested, check out fieldofschemes.com and search "Milwaukee."  There are a number of articles complaining about the lack of pointed questions by Don Walker in the MJS.

martyconlonontherun

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #236 on: September 19, 2014, 11:10:28 AM »
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?

If not have the owners considered attempting to gather money through sponsorship, IE BMO, Harley, NML...

Seems to me that the cart if being placed before the horse.  The city should be approaching this from the other direction.  Lets not attempt to get public financing and then ask the owners.  Lets ask the owners first.  See where they stand.  I thought Kohl sold the team with provisions for keeping it in Milwaukee.  I can not believe he wouldn't have had a clause in case public financing fell through.

I know I wouldn't want to be the politician right now that takes the lead on this public financing.  Because it wont pass a referendum.  The only chance is the politicians go around the public.

IMO public financing should be the LAST resort, yet its the first.

Incidentally I have no idea why it HAS to be downtown.  Especially if they are going to tax the 5 county area again.  Not saying it should be out in the suburbs.  But how about some middle ground.  Maybe out near the casino or Miller park area.

I'm pretty sure they have been asked about it but nothing quotable. That they are looking at all options and it wouldn't be right to speculate on what can and cannot get done until this has been researched. I don't think they will do five county again. Miller Park was more expensive and that also cost a couple politicians their jobs. I think over 70% of the stadium will be publicly financed. The city just needs to decide if having new construction in the city and the ability to claim to be a NBA city is worth $150-200M. I understand its not worth $400M, but i think the lower figure is closer to the worth of having a franchise that brings marketability to a city and all hidden benefits of construction jobs, players taxes, tourism, etc over the next 20 years.

The owners haven't said anything yet besides they are announcing their plan soon. I'm sure they have lined up at least some sponsors.

dgies9156

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #237 on: September 19, 2014, 01:15:36 PM »
Has anyone, reporter or otherwise, asked these owners if they are willing to pay for the stadium by themselves?

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) I have no dog in this hunt, so in the end, I'm not terribly concerned about the consequences. I live an hour from Milwaukee in NE Illinois and we have enough of our own problems, thank you very much. Our state spent somewhere between $200 million and $400 million more than it needed to on a publicly financed football stadium to preserve a crumbling war memorial and to build a toilet seat inside some Greek columns -- so who are we to judge!

2) The only way I could imagine that a privately financed stadium works is if the Bradley Center and the old Milwaukee Arena are torn down. I don't see that as necessarily an automatic in this debate. The Arena, which has not hosted the Bucks or Marquette since 1986, is still standing and I wonder whether the Convention Center District would be open to removing the Arena-Auditorium for an asset they did not control or potentially benefit from. Both sites have to go to ensure the new facility has no competition.

3) The model for a privately financed stadium is Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles condemned the land in Chavez Ravine for the stadium and improvements. Walter O'Malley, the then-owner of the Dodgers, financed the stadium's construction and operated it. One of the big contributors to the eventual success of the Dodgers was Union Oil Company of California's sponsorship, which repaid a financial commitment that company made to the Dodgers. Union Oil sponsored Dodger broadcasts and was the only advertising in Dodger Stadium for years.

4) For a privately financed stadium to work, the owners would require a significant commitment from Marquette regarding use of the stadium and, probably, a commitment from the Admirals and the UWM Panthers as well. I also think the number of concerts would have to rise exponentially. I'm no expert in stadium economics, but I suspect that only Marquette and the concerts could benefit from the incremental amenities and capacity with the new arena.

5) I don't know what to think of the possibility of losing the Bucks. I do know that when the Milwaukee Braves left town in 1965 for Atlanta, it left a huge hole in the hearts of baseball fans in Southeast Wisconsin. The ugliness surrounding the Braves' move south, the bitterness both before and after the team left, really didn't subside until a good part of the generation that was huge Braves fans basically died. The Brewers did a lot to fill the hole, but the lingering animosity toward major league baseball lasted for a long time. I suspect the Bucks have been so bad for so long that the animosity won't be as severe but who knows? Unlike major league baseball, if the Bucks leave, the NBA is NEVER coming back.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #238 on: September 19, 2014, 01:43:26 PM »
A couple of thoughts on this:

1) I have no dog in this hunt, so in the end, I'm not terribly concerned about the consequences. I live an hour from Milwaukee in NE Illinois and we have enough of our own problems, thank you very much. Our state spent somewhere between $200 million and $400 million more than it needed to on a publicly financed football stadium to preserve a crumbling war memorial and to build a toilet seat inside some Greek columns -- so who are we to judge!

2) The only way I could imagine that a privately financed stadium works is if the Bradley Center and the old Milwaukee Arena are torn down. I don't see that as necessarily an automatic in this debate. The Arena, which has not hosted the Bucks or Marquette since 1986, is still standing and I wonder whether the Convention Center District would be open to removing the Arena-Auditorium for an asset they did not control or potentially benefit from. Both sites have to go to ensure the new facility has no competition.

3) The model for a privately financed stadium is Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles condemned the land in Chavez Ravine for the stadium and improvements. Walter O'Malley, the then-owner of the Dodgers, financed the stadium's construction and operated it. One of the big contributors to the eventual success of the Dodgers was Union Oil Company of California's sponsorship, which repaid a financial commitment that company made to the Dodgers. Union Oil sponsored Dodger broadcasts and was the only advertising in Dodger Stadium for years.

4) For a privately financed stadium to work, the owners would require a significant commitment from Marquette regarding use of the stadium and, probably, a commitment from the Admirals and the UWM Panthers as well. I also think the number of concerts would have to rise exponentially. I'm no expert in stadium economics, but I suspect that only Marquette and the concerts could benefit from the incremental amenities and capacity with the new arena.

5) I don't know what to think of the possibility of losing the Bucks. I do know that when the Milwaukee Braves left town in 1965 for Atlanta, it left a huge hole in the hearts of baseball fans in Southeast Wisconsin. The ugliness surrounding the Braves' move south, the bitterness both before and after the team left, really didn't subside until a good part of the generation that was huge Braves fans basically died. The Brewers did a lot to fill the hole, but the lingering animosity toward major league baseball lasted for a long time. I suspect the Bucks have been so bad for so long that the animosity won't be as severe but who knows? Unlike major league baseball, if the Bucks leave, the NBA is NEVER coming back.

There is no doubt in my mind that a private stadium CAN be financed by almost any owner in the NBA. The problem is, they just don't want to, and to this point, most don't have to.

Cities will finance and build arenas and stadiums and give the teams all of the, parking, concessions, etc.

Why would any owner pay for it themselves when there are markets out there that will pay for them? It's happened across all pro sports.

Why would the Wilf's pay for a new Vikings Stadium when they can get the State of MN to do it for them? Way less risk, way less $ up front, and they still get to reap all of the benefits.

The Bucks ownership isn't going to build without public funds. Won't happen. They will want a good amount of public $. That's how it works.

🏀

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8467
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #239 on: September 19, 2014, 01:52:17 PM »
I don't think having the Bucks, MU, UWM and Admirals under the same roof would work for scheduling.

Leave the Arena, knock the BC down.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #240 on: September 19, 2014, 03:10:15 PM »
I don't think having the Bucks, MU, UWM and Admirals under the same roof would work for scheduling.

Leave the Arena, knock the BC down.

It will if the Horizon League moves their weekend games to Friday afternoons.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

Sir Lawrence

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #241 on: September 19, 2014, 03:32:59 PM »
I've heard that:

1.  The owners have already spun off a large portion of their purchase to other (mostly local) investors.

2.  They were (are) attracted to the Bucks/Milwaukee because of the abundance of what they perceive as cheap real estate in the Milwaukee market, especially in the areas along the river.

3.  The merger of the Journal/Sentinel or JSCorp. or whatever it's called with the Cincinnati publisher, puts the Journal Building in play.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 03:48:30 PM by Sir Lawrence »
Ludum habemus.

NersEllenson

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6735
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #242 on: September 19, 2014, 04:36:31 PM »
There is no doubt in my mind that a private stadium CAN be financed by almost any owner in the NBA. The problem is, they just don't want to, and to this point, most don't have to.

Cities will finance and build arenas and stadiums and give the teams all of the, parking, concessions, etc.

Why would any owner pay for it themselves when there are markets out there that will pay for them? It's happened across all pro sports.

Why would the Wilf's pay for a new Vikings Stadium when they can get the State of MN to do it for them? Way less risk, way less $ up front, and they still get to reap all of the benefits.

The Bucks ownership isn't going to build without public funds. Won't happen. They will want a good amount of public $. That's how it works.

I think you just answered your own debate and consternation over the topic...with regard to why Milwaukee should do it.  If there wasn't value in pro sports teams in markets, cities wouldn't spend the money to retain the teams.  Period.  And as mentioned you have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have invested heavily in an arena with tax dollars in the HOPES of landing a team.

MKE would seemingly be ass backwards if it let the Bucks walk, due to not being willing to kick in some funding.  Have to spend money, to make money.  You'd think MKE would have learned its lesson with the Braves..and how bent people were when they left.  Hell MKE damn near let the Brewers walk...imagine if that had happened?  YOu are now looking at a city with as much cache or national mention as Des Moines or Omaha.
"I'm not sure Cadougan would fix the problems on this team. I'm not even convinced he would be better for this team than DeWil is."

BrewCity77, December 8, 2013

MU111

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #243 on: September 19, 2014, 04:54:44 PM »
I think you just answered your own debate and consternation over the topic...with regard to why Milwaukee should do it.  If there wasn't value in pro sports teams in markets, cities wouldn't spend the money to retain the teams.  Period.  And as mentioned you have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have invested heavily in an arena with tax dollars in the HOPES of landing a team.

MKE would seemingly be ass backwards if it let the Bucks walk, due to not being willing to kick in some funding.  Have to spend money, to make money.  You'd think MKE would have learned its lesson with the Braves..and how bent people were when they left.  Hell MKE damn near let the Brewers walk...imagine if that had happened?  YOu are now looking at a city with as much cache or national mention as Des Moines or Omaha.

Omaha is doing extremely well for itself and it does not have a professional sports team.  I don't disagree with you that sports teams do not have value.  I only argue that we should be careful not to be fleeced for a few hundreds of millions of dollars for a stadium that we really don't need.

How much do you think taxpayers should be willing to pay?  I'm honestly curious because it could be an interesting debate.  I admittedly am not even sure, myself, what would be a reasonable amount.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #244 on: September 19, 2014, 05:00:41 PM »
I think you just answered your own debate and consternation over the topic...with regard to why Milwaukee should do it.  If there wasn't value in pro sports teams in markets, cities wouldn't spend the money to retain the teams.  Period.  And as mentioned you have cities like Kansas City, Louisville who have invested heavily in an arena with tax dollars in the HOPES of landing a team.

MKE would seemingly be ass backwards if it let the Bucks walk, due to not being willing to kick in some funding. Have to spend money, to make money.  You'd think MKE would have learned its lesson with the Braves..and how bent people were when they left.  Hell MKE damn near let the Brewers walk...imagine if that had happened?  YOu are now looking at a city with as much cache or national mention as Des Moines or Omaha.

Right, and are there established case studies showing how successful those publicly financed investments have been? Has it created real growth or simply redistribution? Is civic pride at an all time high? Did the arena do what they thought it would?

What about OKC? What will that look like without Durant & Westbrook? Is it sustainable, or did they just get lucky? Are other markets able to sustain high attendance and economic growth? Memphis?  

I'll put it this way:

As a Milwaukee tax payer, I don't want important decisions and large scale investments being made simply "because (insert city) does it". Not good enough.

It has to be correct for this market, both short and long term. That's all I'm interested in. Case studies are great, but it can't be as simple as "Louisville did it, and if we don't, we'll be Des Moines!".

A 200million dollar investment in the Bucks might be a good decision, but I have yet to see anybody from the Bucks lay out a specific case illustrating how the city benefits from a new arena. A lot of vague generalities, like "civic pride", "economic growth", or "lack of concerts".

You want my tax money? show me how it's going to work.

We'll see what ownership presents. If they make a good case, then it'll probably get done. If they say "We need it, or we'll move", I have a feeling they are gone.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 05:02:23 PM by Canned Goods n Ammo »

NersEllenson

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6735
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #245 on: September 19, 2014, 06:40:37 PM »
Right, and are there established case studies showing how successful those publicly financed investments have been? Has it created real growth or simply redistribution? Is civic pride at an all time high? Did the arena do what they thought it would?

What about OKC? What will that look like without Durant & Westbrook? Is it sustainable, or did they just get lucky? Are other markets able to sustain high attendance and economic growth? Memphis?  

I'll put it this way:

As a Milwaukee tax payer, I don't want important decisions and large scale investments being made simply "because (insert city) does it". Not good enough.

It has to be correct for this market, both short and long term. That's all I'm interested in. Case studies are great, but it can't be as simple as "Louisville did it, and if we don't, we'll be Des Moines!".

A 200million dollar investment in the Bucks might be a good decision, but I have yet to see anybody from the Bucks lay out a specific case illustrating how the city benefits from a new arena. A lot of vague generalities, like "civic pride", "economic growth", or "lack of concerts".

You want my tax money? show me how it's going to work.

We'll see what ownership presents. If they make a good case, then it'll probably get done. If they say "We need it, or we'll move", I have a feeling they are gone.


You should make similar demands on how your tax monies are otherwise being spent.  I believe trolley cars are being "invested" into.  Some have argued money for Parks that need upgrades.  Here's a question?  How do parks generate any economic benefit to a city?  Yes, they need to be mowed for 5 months of the year 1 time per week...but what else?  There are plenty of social service programs that handout money with zero return on investment.

I do understand your point, that a case being made such as - this city did it, or that city did it - doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight.  The biggest statement in my view is that cities are in competition with each other, just as are states in competition with each other, just as countries are in competition with each other.  You have economic development councils in pea sized town, trying to attract businesses, all the way up to major metropolitan areas having economic development councils.  And, when there are about 7 cities just ready to snatch up and compete for an NBA franchise, it tells me there is at minimum perceived value in having an NBA team.

As for OKC - when did people ever even hear about OKC prior to the Thunder being located there?  OKC was known basically for the McVeigh Federal building bombing.  Teams have up and down years/periods - yet when a team is playing at a high level, the exposure that team gets for its city is incredible.  How do you quantify this value?  What can Milwaukee do to be mentioned on a national sports cast (with some of the highest ratings of all programming) 82 nights per year, in the way of mere Bucks highlights?
"I'm not sure Cadougan would fix the problems on this team. I'm not even convinced he would be better for this team than DeWil is."

BrewCity77, December 8, 2013

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #246 on: September 19, 2014, 07:41:43 PM »
In these debates, it often comes down to a simple question of "Do we want to be a big-league sports town or not?"

Town (and state) leaders then have to debate that question and come up with an answer. If the answer is yes, then you have to play "the game" and pony up to keep the team. If the answer is that it's not all that important, then you play hardball because you're willing to let the team walk.

I lived in Minneapolis when the North Stars were there. The new owner, Norm Green, wanted to keep the team at Met Center but wanted public money - less than $20 million, if I remember correctly - to improve the building and to link it to the Mall of America, creating kind of an entertainment complex. It really wasn't a bad idea.

But Norm was an outsider - a Canadian, even! - and the Minny folks didn't want to give him a dime. So they called his bluff and he moved the team to Dallas in 1993.

A few years later, Minnesota and St. Paul came up with $170 million to build a new arena to get an expansion team. They sure showed Norm Green, didn't they?!?!?!

At about the same time, Minny was ready to let the Timberwolves leave for New Orleans.

But at least Minny learned from its "mistakes." It decided it did want to be a big-league town, which is why the St. Paul arena got built, public money was spent to help Target Center and both the Twins and Vikings got new facilities.

Is it the best use of public funds? Maybe not, maybe so, but that's almost beside the point.

The main question is how do you want your city/state perceived?
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #247 on: September 22, 2014, 09:28:16 AM »
You should make similar demands on how your tax monies are otherwise being spent.  I believe trolley cars are being "invested" into.  Some have argued money for Parks that need upgrades.  Here's a question?  How do parks generate any economic benefit to a city?  Yes, they need to be mowed for 5 months of the year 1 time per week...but what else?  There are plenty of social service programs that handout money with zero return on investment.

I do understand your point, that a case being made such as - this city did it, or that city did it - doesn't necessarily carry a lot of weight.  The biggest statement in my view is that cities are in competition with each other, just as are states in competition with each other, just as countries are in competition with each other.  You have economic development councils in pea sized town, trying to attract businesses, all the way up to major metropolitan areas having economic development councils.  And, when there are about 7 cities just ready to snatch up and compete for an NBA franchise, it tells me there is at minimum perceived value in having an NBA team.

As for OKC - when did people ever even hear about OKC prior to the Thunder being located there?  OKC was known basically for the McVeigh Federal building bombing.  Teams have up and down years/periods - yet when a team is playing at a high level, the exposure that team gets for its city is incredible.  How do you quantify this value?  What can Milwaukee do to be mentioned on a national sports cast (with some of the highest ratings of all programming) 82 nights per year, in the way of mere Bucks highlights?

So, to be honest, I demand performance from all my tax dollars, I just don't talk about it on a college basketball board. If you want me to gripe about city street maintenance, or how the park is maintained by my house, I can.

As far as measurable results, certainly, I can't see the exact results of the county parks, elementary schools, or public librarys etc. That's totally fair.

However, those aren't for profit businesses that the city is subsidizing. In the Bucks case, this is a private business looking for the city to help fund their infrastructure.

Milwaukee funds the parks and golf courses, but they don't fund a private golf course or private park (that turns a profit). That's a big difference for me. If Milwaukee is going to help fund a private business of this size, there better be documented pay-off for doing so.

I'm not going to be in favor of a new arena simply out of fear. Needs to make sense. It's not that hard, and I'm sure we'll see some sort of proposal.

For OKC, that's just anecdotal. Can't spend $200mil based on anecdotes.

If we're going to use OKC as a case study, I'd need to see how it's actually working out (short and long term). Maybe Memphis is an even better example because they have built a franchise without getting incredibly lucky with Durrant/Westbrook.

swoopem

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1269
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #248 on: September 23, 2014, 09:17:30 AM »
This article is pretty relevant. It talks about the Red Wings new 450 million dollar stadium that is being built in Detroit. The stadium is half city funded and then half private.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sports-stadiums-prove-more-lucrative-for-franchise-owners-than-cities

I'm actually very excited for this to open in 2017. The stadium will obviously be fantastic, but I think the neighborhood that's being built around it is going to be a game changer for the city. 
Bring back FFP!!!

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?
« Reply #249 on: September 23, 2014, 11:18:57 AM »
This article is pretty relevant. It talks about the Red Wings new 450 million dollar stadium that is being built in Detroit. The stadium is half city funded and then half private.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sports-stadiums-prove-more-lucrative-for-franchise-owners-than-cities

I'm actually very excited for this to open in 2017. The stadium will obviously be fantastic, but I think the neighborhood that's being built around it is going to be a game changer for the city. 

This article reads like a horror story to me.

I pray something like this doesn't happen in Milwaukee.

I know the Bucks help make Milwaukee a "big league town", but these kind of stadium deals are raping the city.