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 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 01:02:54 AM]


45 minutes ago at the Dallas Westin by MuggsyB
[Today at 12:19:24 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 12:10:57 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by CountryRoads
[Today at 12:05:42 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Don_Kojis
[Today at 12:04:21 AM]


Where is Marquette? by marqfan22
[March 28, 2024, 09:29:52 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Daniel
[March 28, 2024, 08:47:22 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: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC  (Read 250675 times)

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #400 on: April 27, 2015, 07:54:50 PM »
I can only think of one legit NHL prima donna and thats Crosby. Then you have players like Sean Avery and Raffi Torres. But agree with the general sentiment, love the NHL not so much the NBA.

A lot of my bias comes from working with athletes in both sports.  There is absolutely no comparison. 

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #401 on: April 27, 2015, 08:19:42 PM »
Some will argue that, though most of those people I don't think even understand the skill it takes just to skate before having the hand-eye coordination of what they need to do with a stick and a 3 inch puck that can travel 100mph an hour, all while other guys on the ice are trying to lay you out. 

I find the NBA to be somewhat the opposite.  Lots of results, but boring because it is too easy.  50% of shots go in, effort in parts of the game is not there until later in the game (my perception).  In hockey, I know for that 1 minute shift they are busting tail because they are so gassed when they come off.

To each their own.


One can always go to the Ice Capades.  At least there is some gracefulness and style.  To each their own.

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6315
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #402 on: April 27, 2015, 08:44:58 PM »
One can always go to the Ice Capades.  At least there is some gracefulness and style.  To each their own.

I really dont think you understand the skill required. I have played a ton of sports competitively. I dont claim to be really good at any of them besides volleyball and bowling. By far of all the sports I decided to pick up, hockey was the hardest. Ive played recreationally for close to 4 years now and its still my worst sport. Its incredibly difficult. 

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #403 on: April 27, 2015, 09:18:06 PM »
I really dont think you understand the skill required. I have played a ton of sports competitively. I dont claim to be really good at any of them besides volleyball and bowling. By far of all the sports I decided to pick up, hockey was the hardest. Ive played recreationally for close to 4 years now and its still my worst sport. Its incredibly difficult. 
No doubt, but that does not make it a good spectator sport.  Lots of banging and whatever.  I've been to a Frozen 4 near the net.  Spectacular action, but..........

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #404 on: April 27, 2015, 11:55:49 PM »
No doubt, but that does not make it a good spectator sport.  Lots of banging and whatever.  I've been to a Frozen 4 near the net.  Spectacular action, but..........

Honestly, having been to every major championship this country has to offer, being in the sports world for nearly two decades....there isn't a better major spectator sport IMO.  Plenty of sports executives will tell you the same thing.  Football is not a good spectator sport.  Basketball has its moments, but nothing in person compares to the NHL.

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #405 on: April 28, 2015, 12:05:25 AM »
Honestly, having been to every major championship this country has to offer, being in the sports world for nearly two decades....there isn't a better major spectator sport IMO.  Plenty of sports executives will tell you the same thing.  Football is not a good spectator sport.  Basketball has its moments, but nothing in person compares to the NHL.

Been the best live sport since football was closer to rugby than American football.  I'd argue that it rakes in more cash than any other sport in this country. 

Maigh Eo for Sam

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #406 on: April 28, 2015, 12:10:00 AM »
Been the best live sport since football was closer to rugby than American football.  I'd argue that it rakes in more cash than any other sport in this country. 



Done them all....Super Bowls, Stanley Cups, Final Fours, All-star games, championship fights (boxing and UFC), Indy 500, Daytona 500, World Cup, Olympics, BCS Title game, Breeders Cup, Rose Bowls...nothing compares for me at least.

I've never done the Army-Navy game or a Kentucky Derby...I've heard both are great.  Can't say I've ever done anything high level with Rugby, but that would be fun.   To me it's hockey because of the intensity in the rink and speed, power, finesse, brute force, etc, all wrapped into one game on a surface that is amazingly difficult to play on.

mu_hilltopper

  • Warrior
  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
    • https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #407 on: April 28, 2015, 07:10:49 AM »
I put an ice rink in my back yard this January and learned to skate.  It's hard.

Of course, I'm 46 and uncoordinated.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #408 on: April 28, 2015, 11:32:25 AM »
Ammo, thanks for the response.  I believe that $730 million is over a 30 year period, and yes, it is mostly and perhaps entirely from income taxes.

Several of the questions are based off of a plan Scott Fitzgerald has floated.  To better educate yourself see:

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/10/public-funding-deal-for-bucks-arena-could-get-done.html?page=all

One highlight from this article:

"Abele's office had said Thursday that Fitzgerald's proposal to potentially borrow from the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands "is a viable and creative strategy."
Fitzgerald said he feels confident the majority of Republicans will support a plan he is advancing with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) to attain $150 million in state funding for the arena through the state Board of Commissioners of Public Lands.
The public agency has about $1 billion in assets and makes loans for local projects. The state would pay back the principal plus 3.75 percent interest with the proceeds going to public education, Fitzgerald said.
“I think we have a plan that really works for everybody,” Fitzgerald said. “We’ve just got to continue to massage it and get everybody to the right place. We’re waiting for the city to come up with their piece.”
Fitzgerald said his proposal would be “somewhat revenue-neutral” for the state budget. Because of that, he believes legislators from out-state, who are neutral at best on public funding for the arena project, would support his plan."

The MMAC poll mentions aspects of this proposal and the results show consistent statewide support.  Truthfully I'm a skeptic of the ancillary benefits of new stadiums and think financial impact numbers are often inflated and overhyped.  It's like sprinkles on a sundae...sure the sprinkles would be nice but I'm much more concerned about the sundae.  To me the sundae looks appealing.

I guess the bottom line for me is this:

1.48 billion over 30 years sounds like is vastly inflated. Murphy did a nice job breaking down the numbers applying some common sense in his article, but Murphy's tone indicates that he's not particularly interested in professional sports, so keep that in mind. 

As was talked about pages and pages earlier in this thread, in the coming months, we're going to see all sorts of manipulation of the "plan" in order to present it in the best light. The Bucks and select politicians are going to tell us that it's a huge win for Milwaukee. The opposite side are going to say it's robbery. The truth likely lies in the middle, and that's why I don't particularly trust a lot of the stuff that's presented.

MUENG and BrewCity have presented the most honest case (in my mind). The arena is not an economic magic bullet, but if executed properly, it CAN help the city. I can totally understand that point of view. Very reasonable.

What I can't understand (and I fight against) is people who present the plan as if it's an absolute MUST HAVE. It's not a MUST HAVE. Milwaukee can survive without the Bucks, and the Bucks can survive without Milwaukee.

AND if keeping the Bucks is as beneficial as some people claim (1.48Billion, jock tax, jobs, etc.), then Milwaukee politicians should be camped out at the NHL offices BEGGING for a franchise. If a politician is telling me that a minimal investment from the city/state will generate $50million in taxes each year, then f*ck, that same politician should be camped out at the NHL league office begging for a franchise. 

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #409 on: April 28, 2015, 12:46:34 PM »
Done them all....Super Bowls, Stanley Cups, Final Fours, All-star games, championship fights (boxing and UFC), Indy 500, Daytona 500, World Cup, Olympics, BCS Title game, Breeders Cup, Rose Bowls...nothing compares for me at least.

I've never done the Army-Navy game or a Kentucky Derby...I've heard both are great.  Can't say I've ever done anything high level with Rugby, but that would be fun.   To me it's hockey because of the intensity in the rink and speed, power, finesse, brute force, etc, all wrapped into one game on a surface that is amazingly difficult to play on.

But have you done chess boxing? Look it up now thank me later.
Maigh Eo for Sam

Juan Anderson's Mixtape

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #410 on: April 28, 2015, 12:49:45 PM »
Are sports teams a need?  No, they are a want but I see it as a quality of life issue.  If say the Milwaukee Art Museum or Zoo needed public funding to stay open I would support that too.  Not everyone goes to the zoo or art museum, just like not everyone goes to the Bucks or Marquette games.  But I think it improves the quality of life for the Milwaukee area and the entire state of Wisconsin.  I only lived in the Milwaukee area when I attended Marquette but have traveled to Bucks games, Brewers games, the Milwaukee Art Museum and Zoo from other parts of the state throughout my life.  So, yes it is not a need but I still support it.  I agree an NHL team would have a positive financial impact but I see that as an improbability so why bother discussing it.  If legislators want to waste their time lobbying the NHL, then whatever.  While they're at it they could retrofit Miller Park for football and hope an NFL team comes to Milwaukee.

The non-partisan legislative fiscal bureau is on the record saying that the Bucks generate $6.5 million dollars per year in income tax revenue.  Over 20 years that is $130 million even if NBA salaries remain perfectly flat.  Do you see that happening?  I don't.  What that number will be I don't know but I know it will be north of $130 million.  I've seen NBA salary cap projections of $85 million and $105 million for the next two years, up from $65 million this year.  Bucks current payroll is $63.6 million (though probably lower after factoring in the Larry Sanders buyout).  Doing the math it's easy to project the Bucks and NBA generating $10.5 million per year in income taxes alone.  Now we're talking $210 million over 20 years if the salary cap never rises above $105 million.

So at a minimum the state is set to lose $130 million over 20 years and that number could very easily be north of $200 million.  Plus, the Bradley Center needs upkeep of $100 million over the next 10 years according to bizjournals.com.  So option one, lose the Bucks and the state is out $130-200+million plus $100 million spent on the BC.  So we're talking $230-330 million all told.  Which looks about to be what the state would need to fund the stadium...ta da...the stadium is self funded!  (Actually I went back and did the math...$150 million at 3.75% paid back over 20 years= $213.44 million.)

Ok, now that we've established that let's look at other benefits.  $250 million in private money is used to build the stadium,which spurs construction jobs. Keeping the Bucks is a gain of $250 million dollars minimum.  Losing the Bucks costs a minimum $230-330 million.  So the Bucks are a net to the state of $480-580 million minimum over the next 20 years.

I could speculate on what losing the Bucks could mean to area business and restaurants but those numbers are very hard to prove.  But the Bucks are a minimum $480 million asset.  If the additional $500 million in development happens, the Bucks could be worth $1 billion, if not more.  We're creeping closer to that $1.4 billion number.  See how easy that was?  Just need to do the math and use some critical thinking to see the positives.  A $1 billion asset isn't a need but it sure is a hell of a want!

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #411 on: April 28, 2015, 01:00:45 PM »
Are sports teams a need?  No, they are a want but I see it as a quality of life issue.  If say the Milwaukee Art Museum or Zoo needed public funding to stay open I would support that too.  Not everyone goes to the zoo or art museum, just like not everyone goes to the Bucks or Marquette games.  But I think it improves the quality of life for the Milwaukee area and the entire state of Wisconsin.  I only lived in the Milwaukee area when I attended Marquette but have traveled to Bucks games, Brewers games, the Milwaukee Art Museum and Zoo from other parts of the state throughout my life.  So, yes it is not a need but I still support it.  I agree an NHL team would have a positive financial impact but I see that as an improbability so why bother discussing it.  If legislators want to waste their time lobbying the NHL, then whatever.  While they're at it they could retrofit Miller Park for football and hope an NFL team comes to Milwaukee.

The non-partisan legislative fiscal bureau is on the record saying that the Bucks generate $6.5 million dollars per year in income tax revenue.  Over 20 years that is $130 million even if NBA salaries remain perfectly flat.  Do you see that happening?  I don't.  What that number will be I don't know but I know it will be north of $130 million.  I've seen NBA salary cap projections of $85 million and $105 million for the next two years, up from $65 million this year.  Bucks current payroll is $63.6 million (though probably lower after factoring in the Larry Sanders buyout).  Doing the math it's easy to project the Bucks and NBA generating $10.5 million per year in income taxes alone.  Now we're talking $210 million over 20 years if the salary cap never rises above $105 million.

So at a minimum the state is set to lose $130 million over 20 years and that number could very easily be north of $200 million.  Plus, the Bradley Center needs upkeep of $100 million over the next 10 years according to bizjournals.com.  So option one, lose the Bucks and the state is out $130-200+million plus $100 million spent on the BC.  So we're talking $230-330 million all told.  Which looks about to be what the state would need to fund the stadium...ta da...the stadium is self funded!  (Actually I went back and did the math...$150 million at 3.75% paid back over 20 years= $213.44 million.)

Ok, now that we've established that let's look at other benefits.  $250 million in private money is used to build the stadium,which spurs construction jobs. Keeping the Bucks is a gain of $250 million dollars minimum.  Losing the Bucks costs a minimum $230-330 million.  So the Bucks are a net to the state of $480-580 million minimum over the next 20 years.

I could speculate on what losing the Bucks could mean to area business and restaurants but those numbers are very hard to prove.  But the Bucks are a minimum $480 million asset.  If the additional $500 million in development happens, the Bucks could be worth $1 billion, if not more.  We're creeping closer to that $1.4 billion number.  See how easy that was?  Just need to do the math and use some critical thinking to see the positives.  A $1 billion asset isn't a need but it sure is a hell of a want!

Also doesn't account for tax revenue generated by workers' salaries as well as material procurement, etc that goes into construction.

Side note, you could lower the overall cost of the project and save some money if the county and city didn't have the prevailing wage requirement that increases the labor rate artificially.  Not sayin' just sayin'
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Juan Anderson's Mixtape

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #412 on: April 28, 2015, 01:03:06 PM »
As for the Murphy article, those numbers are all hypothetical.  There is no guarantee that land is developed with or without the Bucks.  So I guess it comes down to whether or not you think that land is developed without the Bucks and if those benefits outweigh keeping the Bucks and possibly having the development of the stadium entertainment district.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #413 on: April 29, 2015, 10:43:27 AM »
As for the Murphy article, those numbers are all hypothetical.  There is no guarantee that land is developed with or without the Bucks.  So I guess it comes down to whether or not you think that land is developed without the Bucks and if those benefits outweigh keeping the Bucks and possibly having the development of the stadium entertainment district.

Agreed, Murphy isn't 100% correct either.

However, he does at least count for the opportunity cost that I don't think arena proponents ever want to talk about.

The Bucks will generate $X amount of dollars per year, but they are also NOT paying taxes on the arena, or possibly their developments around the arena. If you put something else in those spaces, there will be tax revenue, so we need to at least consider that, even if it's simply potential/hypothetical (we're talking about 30 years). 

I'm in favor of these types of tax incentives for the Bucks, but everybody (especially politicians) need to be more transparent when we discuss how much the Bucks are worth to the city and state, and how much they are potentially going to cost the city/state is opportunity costs. 

And again, I'm not necessarily against a new arena, but the plan needs to be good. AND, I'll challenge anybody who says that it's a no-brainer. It's not a no-brainer. Part of coming up with a mutual beneficial deal is a willingness to say "no thanks". Politicians and city planners need to engage their critical thinking skills.

AND, the NHL stuff I brought up is basically nonsense, but my point is that if anybody tries to convince you that this is a great deal for Milwaukee, ask that person why we shouldn't attempt to get an NHL franchise as well. If the income tax revenues (alone) far outweigh the investment, then it's a no-brainer, right?

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #414 on: April 29, 2015, 10:56:18 AM »
Agreed, Murphy isn't 100% correct either.

However, he does at least count for the opportunity cost that I don't think arena proponents ever want to talk about.

The Bucks will generate $X amount of dollars per year, but they are also NOT paying taxes on the arena, or possibly their developments around the arena. If you put something else in those spaces, there will be tax revenue, so we need to at least consider that, even if it's simply potential/hypothetical (we're talking about 30 years). 

I'm in favor of these types of tax incentives for the Bucks, but everybody (especially politicians) need to be more transparent when we discuss how much the Bucks are worth to the city and state, and how much they are potentially going to cost the city/state is opportunity costs. 

And again, I'm not necessarily against a new arena, but the plan needs to be good. AND, I'll challenge anybody who says that it's a no-brainer. It's not a no-brainer. Part of coming up with a mutual beneficial deal is a willingness to say "no thanks". Politicians and city planners need to engage their critical thinking skills.

AND, the NHL stuff I brought up is basically nonsense, but my point is that if anybody tries to convince you that this is a great deal for Milwaukee, ask that person why we shouldn't attempt to get an NHL franchise as well. If the income tax revenues (alone) far outweigh the investment, then it's a no-brainer, right?

If you don't put the arena in, what goes in there that not only doesn't have the tax exception but pays taxes?  What is the reason that business is going into that cite without city incentive?  Where are these businesses going if they aren't going in the current BC area?  Basically, is the space and location valuable enough that incentives are not required....I don't think so but I'd love to hear why you think it is.

And with the NHL stuff you are missing the point again....the tax revenues of a basketball and hockey franchise can't be generated in the volume to offset the cost.  There isn't enough demand in the market size we're in.  If you want to make an argument that we get an NHL team instead of the Bucks you've got a line of discussion.  If it's both it's nonsense.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #415 on: April 29, 2015, 10:57:12 AM »
Are sports teams a need?  No, they are a want but I see it as a quality of life issue.  If say the Milwaukee Art Museum or Zoo needed public funding to stay open I would support that too.  Not everyone goes to the zoo or art museum, just like not everyone goes to the Bucks or Marquette games.  But I think it improves the quality of life for the Milwaukee area and the entire state of Wisconsin.  I only lived in the Milwaukee area when I attended Marquette but have traveled to Bucks games, Brewers games, the Milwaukee Art Museum and Zoo from other parts of the state throughout my life.  So, yes it is not a need but I still support it.  I agree an NHL team would have a positive financial impact but I see that as an improbability so why bother discussing it.  If legislators want to waste their time lobbying the NHL, then whatever.  While they're at it they could retrofit Miller Park for football and hope an NFL team comes to Milwaukee.

The non-partisan legislative fiscal bureau is on the record saying that the Bucks generate $6.5 million dollars per year in income tax revenue.  Over 20 years that is $130 million even if NBA salaries remain perfectly flat.  Do you see that happening?  I don't.  What that number will be I don't know but I know it will be north of $130 million.  I've seen NBA salary cap projections of $85 million and $105 million for the next two years, up from $65 million this year.  Bucks current payroll is $63.6 million (though probably lower after factoring in the Larry Sanders buyout).  Doing the math it's easy to project the Bucks and NBA generating $10.5 million per year in income taxes alone.  Now we're talking $210 million over 20 years if the salary cap never rises above $105 million.

So at a minimum the state is set to lose $130 million over 20 years and that number could very easily be north of $200 million.  Plus, the Bradley Center needs upkeep of $100 million over the next 10 years according to bizjournals.com.  So option one, lose the Bucks and the state is out $130-200+million plus $100 million spent on the BC.  So we're talking $230-330 million all told.  Which looks about to be what the state would need to fund the stadium...ta da...the stadium is self funded!  (Actually I went back and did the math...$150 million at 3.75% paid back over 20 years= $213.44 million.)

Ok, now that we've established that let's look at other benefits.  $250 million in private money is used to build the stadium,which spurs construction jobs. Keeping the Bucks is a gain of $250 million dollars minimum.  Losing the Bucks costs a minimum $230-330 million.  So the Bucks are a net to the state of $480-580 million minimum over the next 20 years.

I could speculate on what losing the Bucks could mean to area business and restaurants but those numbers are very hard to prove.  But the Bucks are a minimum $480 million asset.  If the additional $500 million in development happens, the Bucks could be worth $1 billion, if not more.  We're creeping closer to that $1.4 billion number.  See how easy that was?  Just need to do the math and use some critical thinking to see the positives.  A $1 billion asset isn't a need but it sure is a hell of a want!

Just to address the zoo vs an arena thing, I believe the zoo, art museums, etc. are publicly owned and/or non-profit, right? (somebody correct me if I'm being naive)

I'm not against the Milwaukee Bucks owners getting (more) rich, but I wouldn't put the Bucks on the list of public assets like the facilities mentioned above. They are a for-profit, privately owned enterprise.

Lastly, I'm skeptical of the 500M in development, AND, if there is eventual development, I'm skeptical that we can attribute it to the arena. We have a multipurpose arena in the same neighborhood currently. It has spurned very little development since 1988. (certainly not 500M). While a new arena would be more attractive, and the economic and social climate is different in Milwaukee, I'm still skeptical that BAM! $500M is going to show up around the arena. Didn't happen last time.

Litehouse

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #416 on: April 29, 2015, 11:07:55 AM »
Lastly, I'm skeptical of the 500M in development, AND, if there is eventual development, I'm skeptical that we can attribute it to the arena. We have a multipurpose arena in the same neighborhood currently. It has spurned very little development since 1988. (certainly not 500M). While a new arena would be more attractive, and the economic and social climate is different in Milwaukee, I'm still skeptical that BAM! $500M is going to show up around the arena. Didn't happen last time.
I think you're right to be skeptical of the $500M in additional development, and nobody is saying it's going to happen instantly.  However, we've gone through this issue multiple times in this thread why the BC isn't the best example.  The BC was built for higher capacity and luxury boxes, not necessarily to spur surrounding development.  The proposed design of the new arena at least has much more opportunity to spur surrounding development.

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #417 on: April 29, 2015, 11:08:43 AM »
If you don't put the arena in, what goes in there that not only doesn't have the tax exception but pays taxes?  What is the reason that business is going into that cite without city incentive?  Where are these businesses going if they aren't going in the current BC area?  Basically, is the space and location valuable enough that incentives are not required....I don't think so but I'd love to hear why you think it is.

And with the NHL stuff you are missing the point again....the tax revenues of a basketball and hockey franchise can't be generated in the volume to offset the cost.  There isn't enough demand in the market size we're in.  If you want to make an argument that we get an NHL team instead of the Bucks you've got a line of discussion.  If it's both it's nonsense.

To address your first point, honestly, I have no idea. I'm not a city planner. I'm not involved in urban real-estate at all. I'm just trying to challenge some of the numbers that are thrown out there like they are absolutes. There is opportunity costs to making this deal. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, so making the Bucks deal might be the best option. I have no idea how to calculate the true opportunity costs or potential of those properties. But, I don't want anybody to pretend that they don't exist. In might be theoretical at this point, but they do exist. Again, I'm just trying to find transparency. Murphy column was pretty slanted against. Some other articles are pretty biased towards the arena.

As far as the NHL, I don't think I'm making my point clearly.

It has been discussed by some people that the "Jock tax" will more than cover the investment. Plus, the income taxes of other employees related to the franchise (I'm not talking arena operations, I'm talking FRANCHISE operations.)

If somebody makes that argument, I have to challenge that thinking and ask why we shouldn't try to get an NHL franchise as well? Certainly the jock tax and franchise employees will cover the cost to attract a franchise, right? Give an NHL franchise $150M to move as sign a long term lease.

As far as the franchise's ultimate success or failure, I don't care. That's not my point. My point is that if we believe that jock tax and income tax from franchise employees is more than enough to make this deal attractive, then we attempt to land an NHL franchise as well.

An NHL franchise is not going to be worth double to the city, but as I said, I'm talking about specific taxes, not theoretical economic impact.



Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #418 on: April 29, 2015, 11:11:34 AM »
I think you're right to be skeptical of the $500M in additional development, and nobody is saying it's going to happen instantly.  However, we've gone through this issue multiple times in this thread why the BC isn't the best example.  The BC was built for higher capacity and luxury boxes, not necessarily to spur surrounding development.  The proposed design of the new arena at least has much more opportunity to spur surrounding development.

I hate to sound like such a crusty old man, but I'm not sure that adding a beer garden and creating better sidewalks is going to spur $500M in development.

I completely understand that this plan is better than the BC's plan, I'm just skeptical that it's 500M better.

Will there be more "stuff" surround the new arena? Absolutely. Will it be actual growth, or just redistribution of entertainment and real-estate dollars? Well, that's a long-term study, and above my pay grade.

Litehouse

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #419 on: April 29, 2015, 11:32:36 AM »
There will actually be an opportunity for nearby development now with available space, which there wasn't previously.

On the NHL - the average team payroll is about $60M, so at the highest state income tax bracket that's about $4.5M annually.  Let's round it up to $5M to include all the other front office and support staff people.  This will increase over time, but not as much as the projected NBA salaries due to their new TV deal.  So offering an NHL team $150M to relocate here is looking at a really long payback period (20+ years) just to break even.  Next, the owners have to actually believe they can make money here.  If Milwaukee can't support a profitable franchise, no owner is going to move here despite the incentive we're giving them.  The Phoenix, Carolina and Florida franchises are already in rough shape and potentially looking to relocate to Quebec, Las Vegas and Seattle.  Those are all markets without NBA competition, so I doubt Milwaukee would look more attractive to owners than any of those, or even Kansas City.

connie

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #420 on: April 29, 2015, 11:34:51 AM »
I hate to sound like such a crusty old man, but I'm not sure that adding a beer garden and creating better sidewalks is going to spur $500M in development.

I completely understand that this plan is better than the BC's plan, I'm just skeptical that it's 500M better.

Will there be more "stuff" surround the new arena? Absolutely. Will it be actual growth, or just redistribution of entertainment and real-estate dollars? Well, that's a long-term study, and above my pay grade.

You raise an issue that I don't think gets enough weight.  There has to be a ceiling on the entertainment dollars that are spent.  If they go to one place they don't go to another.  I am in favor of public help for these venues, but to say that this spurs "X" amount of new development is mostly disingenuous.  Granted "X" dollars are being spent there, but for the most part those dollars are going to be spent on entertainment somewhere.  This discussion may be how the whole thing has to be sold, but in the end I think it comes down to a quality of life argument, and whether or not having the Bucks and a new venue is worth the dollars necessary to develop the venue.
"Let's be careful out there."  Phil Esterhaus

Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #421 on: April 29, 2015, 11:39:28 AM »
There will actually be an opportunity for nearby development now with available space, which there wasn't previously.

On the NHL - the average team payroll is about $60M, so at the highest state income tax bracket that's about $4.5M annually.  Let's round it up to $5M to include all the other front office and support staff people.  This will increase over time, but not as much as the projected NBA salaries due to their new TV deal.  So offering an NHL team $150M to relocate here is looking at a really long payback period (20+ years) just to break even.  Next, the owners have to actually believe they can make money here.  If Milwaukee can't support a profitable franchise, no owner is going to move here despite the incentive we're giving them.  The Phoenix, Carolina and Florida franchises are already in rough shape and potentially looking to relocate to Quebec, Las Vegas and Seattle.  Those are all markets without NBA competition, so I doubt Milwaukee would look more attractive to owners than any of those, or even Kansas City.

Totally fair.

If I was really a proponent of adding an NHL franchise, I'd bring up a bunch of stuff about additional economic impact in the neighborhood (on top of the Bucks), civic pride, more labor hours, etc. etc.

But, I'm not really a proponent of adding an NHL franchise. I'm just talking about the investment vs pay off of income tax dollars. If it's going to take 20 years, then it's probably not worth it.



Canned Goods n Ammo

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5008
  • Ammo, clean shaven Ammo.
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #422 on: April 29, 2015, 11:42:49 AM »
You raise an issue that I don't think gets enough weight.  There has to be a ceiling on the entertainment dollars that are spent.  If they go to one place they don't go to another.  I am in favor of public help for these venues, but to say that this spurs "X" amount of new development is mostly disingenuous.  Granted "X" dollars are being spent there, but for the most part those dollars are going to be spent on entertainment somewhere.  This discussion may be how the whole thing has to be sold, but in the end I think it comes down to a quality of life argument, and whether or not having the Bucks and a new venue is worth the dollars necessary to develop the venue.

Correct. That's why I wasn't really in favor of moving the arena to a new neighborhood.

Now, if we can get some additional businesses, and some population growth/density in the area, then I think we can start saying that it's "growth" not redistribution.

If it's just bars/restaurants/hotels, well, I'm not sure if that's exactly growth. We're likely just stealing from 3rd street and water st.

Litehouse

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #423 on: April 29, 2015, 12:03:27 PM »
You raise an issue that I don't think gets enough weight.  There has to be a ceiling on the entertainment dollars that are spent.  If they go to one place they don't go to another.  I am in favor of public help for these venues, but to say that this spurs "X" amount of new development is mostly disingenuous.  Granted "X" dollars are being spent there, but for the most part those dollars are going to be spent on entertainment somewhere.  This discussion may be how the whole thing has to be sold, but in the end I think it comes down to a quality of life argument, and whether or not having the Bucks and a new venue is worth the dollars necessary to develop the venue.

I think this is somewhat true for surrounding bar/restaurants, but the critical mass of having these establishments close together does help spur additional hotel, retail and residential development.  If it's a fun area, a significant number of people will want to live nearby.  Even if the business is displaced, I think having 10 restaurants clumped together provides more value than 10 spread out in other areas due to the critical mass.

Also, I think we need to look at the "redistribution" argument with disposable income as a whole, not just entertainment.  People aren't just deciding if they want to go to Turners vs. Olive Garden for dinner.  They're looking at the entire experience and comparing what else they can spend that money on.  Should they spend $400 on a weekend in Milwaukee with a hotel, nice dinner, and catch a game, or buy an Apple Watch?  Go to a concert or buy a new fishing pole?  People more and more are looking for experiences over "stuff", so a development like this is trying to attract that spending.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC
« Reply #424 on: April 29, 2015, 12:24:19 PM »
Correct. That's why I wasn't really in favor of moving the arena to a new neighborhood.

Now, if we can get some additional businesses, and some population growth/density in the area, then I think we can start saying that it's "growth" not redistribution.

If it's just bars/restaurants/hotels, well, I'm not sure if that's exactly growth. We're likely just stealing from 3rd street and water st.


I get where you are coming from but I don't think you are going to get the answers you are looking for because they don't exist.  As a product manager I have to come up with a proposed project/strategy and develop a cost and revenue forecast that I then use to justify the project.  As the project moves forward the forecasts become more accurate but even by the time we launch the project the forecast could be way off.  We have to look at it from an experienced eye to say "yep, this seems the likely outcome lets keep going".

We can storyboard and forecast the bejezus out of the numbers but we aren't going to get past them being speculation, there are far too many pieces to know for sure.  So I look at the numbers we know, the numbers we think we know, and what I perceive are the market trends for and against this effort.  I come up with make this happen and it's a no brainer.  You have to reach your own conclusion.

The numbers and detail you are looking for exist within the planning team but you'll never see them because they only people that care or understand what it all is....us super nerds :)
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."