wonder what this will be....

[muwarrior69]

I would guess the Arena is less expensive to maintain and run than the Bradley Center would be.

The Arena is like the old refrigerator you stick in your garage and it runs for decades.

I liked that old arena.

[Newsdreams]

The ceiling is the roof.

No

[We R Final Four]

I'm not trying to have it both ways, you just aren't reading. If the Bucks decide to set the price at a point Marquette can't afford, we aren't ending up there. Period. Fortunately, there are other options such as the Mecca and building on campus arena that they could look at. If the Bucks set a price that is so high that it would actually more beneficial to the university to build an on campus arena or go the Mecca than Marquette can tell them to lower the price or they walk. Because the Bucks also need us (and I think the need us more than they need to squeeze every dollar of us) I believe they would then lower the price, which is why I said we would never end up there.

One last time TAMU--
As you have said several times we are NEVER going back to the fridge in the basement. Not going to happen.
You can keep adding caveats to this statement, but I agree with you that we are NEVER going back there. End of story.
When MU plays a season at the Panther Arena for whatever reasons you may believe please let me know. Until then, I will be watching MU play its games at the Silk.

[warriorchick]

One last time TAMU--
As you have said several times we are NEVER going back to the fridge in the basement. Not going to happen.
You can keep adding caveats to this statement, but I agree with you that we are NEVER going back there. End of story.
When MU plays a season at the Panther Arena for whatever reasons you may believe please let me know. Until then, I will be watching MU play its games at the Silk.

I believe TAMU's point is that there is always a point where a decision does not make economic sense.

What if at the end of the 7-year lease, the Bucks say, "Next year, we are going to charge you a million dollars per game for rent"?  Would we be playing at the Silk?  Hell, no.  And we wouldn't have had time to build a new arena, so yes, we would be probably going back to the fridge.

Is a million dollars per game a ridiculous amount?  Of course, but keep lowering that number until it isn't.  There is a cutoff where it doesn't make sense to play at the new arena and we start looking at our alternatives.  And the Bucks would be morons to charge that price.

But let's be clear.  With the exception of love (in some cases), everything has a price.  Everything.

[We R Final Four]

That's fair. Then he never should have said NEVER.
I believe we will never go back.
TAMU also believes we will never go back.....but we could.
TAMU believes we will never ever go back......but we might.
TAMU believes we will never ever play at the area again.......but it's a possibility.
Maybe my definition of NEVER differs from others.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Knot if its a SubZero, ai na?

if your old basement fridge is a Sub Zero you are most likely in the minority

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I don't get why people are so bent out of shape.  It's called negotiating.  Marquette wanted to lock in a sweetheart deal for 15 years.  The Bucks owners initial offer of 3 years is just low balling.  Compromise is reached at 7 years.

Marquette was probably caught off guard because negotiations were more cordial in the past.  But that was an entirely different group.  Now MU knows what to expect and can go in with a different mindset.  I also expect MU to be more prepared for contingencies.  For example, what is a worst case scenario where going to the Arena makes more sense than staying in the Real Chili-Foxconn-Silk Exotic-Ed's Bowlarama Stadium.  Another scenario would be a hybrid model where MU plays 3-6 games at the new stadium and the rest at the Arena.  Doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Negotiations for an extension probably take place in 5-6 years.  MU has time to do there legwork.

[Marcus92]

Yes, anything could happen. The negotiators could be irrational actors. In a quantum universe, all that can happen does happen. I don't see how arguing potential realities is relevant to this discussion.

The primary economic law at play here is "supply and demand." The arena is the supply. Like a hotel, it has space and dates to sell. But the arena is worth nothing without demand. If nobody leases the space, the arena generates no income. That would be really bad when you just spent $500 million building the place.

Where those two forces intersect is the equilibrium price. That's Microeconomics 101 (one of my freshman year classes at Marquette). We may not know the details of the agreement. But basic economics suggests that MU reached a fair deal.

[MUBurrow]

I think that a lot of the flavor of the comments in this thread are right, but then are just made too extreme. As of this negotiation, common sense would dictate that MU needed the space more than the Bucks needed MU to fill it. Worst case for MU to not get the space is pretty disastrous, for the dearth of other options mentioned. The worst case for the Bucks is the lost revenue of about 20-25 dates, when they only commit to filling about 50 out of 365 themselves (ignoring same day scheduling, etc.). But today, the arena is brand new, built with a ton of public money, and will have much more diverse revenue streams than the BC, and therefore is less immediately dependent on filling dates in the near term to maintain profitability - again, the impact of the public money cannot be overstated here. Advantage: Bucks. And sounds like they used it.

I agree that the wisdom of the Bucks not taking a longer view may be risky. Years from now, capital costs will go up to maintain the place, and filling the joint will become more important as the novelty wears off and the alternative revenue streams don't result in sufficient growth to keep the owners happy. But here's the thing - the Bucks owners aren't the type of guys that necessarily base their business decisions off 10-year projections. They're looking for a quicker burn, and they know a lot could change in that time. Maybe they sell the team (maybe to a buyer willing to keep them in MKE if Kohl's condition attaches to future sales). Maybe Marquette finds the money for that lusted after on campus arena. Who knows. But for the Bucks, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The backfire is if that actually spurs MU to pursue other options over the next half decade - but again, the Bucks directives may have been to not worry too much about that, because there's just too much uncertainty around what conditions will exist at that time, and whether the same people that stand to profit now will even be around then.

[mu03eng]

That's fair. Then he never should have said NEVER.
I believe we will never go back.
TAMU also believes we will never go back.....but we could.
TAMU believes we will never ever go back......but we might.
TAMU believes we will never ever play at the area again.......but it's a possibility.
Maybe my definition of NEVER differs from others.

So saying he believes we'll never go back but saying there could be some permutation of events that results in us going back is some how dumb? What absolutism world do you live in? Would it be better if he explained it in probabilities? If he said "100% of known scenarios result in 0% chance of going back, but the unknown scenarios have no probability for going back figured out" would that be better?

I agree, I don't believe we ever go back.....but there could absolutely be a scenario I can't think of that results in us going back.

[DCHoopster]

I don't get why people are so bent out of shape.  It's called negotiating.  Marquette wanted to lock in a sweetheart deal for 15 years.  The Bucks owners initial offer of 3 years is just low balling.  Compromise is reached at 7 years.

Marquette was probably caught off guard because negotiations were more cordial in the past.  But that was an entirely different group.  Now MU knows what to expect and can go in with a different mindset.  I also expect MU to be more prepared for contingencies.  For example, what is a worst case scenario where going to the Arena makes more sense than staying in the Real Chili-Foxconn-Silk Exotic-Ed's Bowlarama Stadium.  Another scenario would be a hybrid model where MU plays 3-6 games at the new stadium and the rest at the Arena.  Doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Negotiations for an extension probably take place in 5-6 years.  MU has time to do there legwork.

How about winning more and the fans will pay more for the product? The improved seating and site lines will be much improved, fans will show up.  MU can make more money per game, just maybe they will bring in some better teams as well.  Minny, Northwestern, Duke why not, Wisco, Michigan or Michigan St., why not?
How about UCLA?

[GOO]

So saying he believes we'll never go back but saying there could be some permutation of events that results in us going back is some how dumb? What absolutism world do you live in? Would it be better if he explained it in probabilities? If he said "100% of known scenarios result in 0% chance of going back, but the unknown scenarios have no probability for going back figured out" would that be better?

I agree, I don't believe we ever go back.....but there could absolutely be a scenario I can't think of that results in us going back.

Well said.  Of course there are possible scenarios in which we would go back. The Bucks make the new place unaffordable in 7 years... we'd have to look at going back and if the money made sense, we would go back.
If the trend towards better home entertainment and VR takes off, and people stop attending games in the numbers that people currently do or costs exceed what people are willing to pay, of course we'd go back.

I for one do expect a trend away from people attending live sporting events in person.  There may be a lot of overbuilt arenas and fields in 15 years.  IN which case, going back to the Mecca or building a new Mecca with the admirals would be a possibility if the Bucks ask for an unreasonable amount for a half filled arena.

[brewcity77]

I don't think we will ever go back to the MECCA. I also don't believe Marquette will allow itself to be so easily pigeonholed into a deal like that in the future.

[DCHoopster]

Well said.  Of course there are possible scenarios in which we would go back. The Bucks make the new place unaffordable in 7 years... we'd have to look at going back and if the money made sense, we would go back.
If the trend towards better home entertainment and VR takes off, and people stop attending games in the numbers that people currently do or costs exceed what people are willing to pay, of course we'd go back.

I for one do expect a trend away from people attending live sporting events in person.  There may be a lot of overbuilt arenas and fields in 15 years.  IN which case, going back to the Mecca or building a new Mecca with the admirals would be a possibility if the Bucks ask for an unreasonable amount for a half filled arena.

If MU goes back to the Arena, that means the program is going backwards.  The new owners are all about money, that is how they became so rich, they will not want
to lose 15 or 16 days of revenue from MU.  They wanted the NCAA tournament to comeback, they got it.  The building will be lucky to be used 100 times a year, so they would want another tenant.  The Bucks will only use it at most 50-60 times a year.  Then what?

[We R Final Four]

So saying he believes we'll never go back but saying there could be some permutation of events that results in us going back is some how dumb? What absolutism world do you live in? Would it be better if he explained it in probabilities? If he said "100% of known scenarios result in 0% chance of going back, but the unknown scenarios have no probability for going back figured out" would that be better?

I agree, I don't believe we ever go back.....but there could absolutely be a scenario I can't think of that results in us going back.

Then don't say we will NEVER go back. If you believe it's an option to go back at some point, then don't say we will never go back. Dumb? I don't know. I didn't say that.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

How about winning more and the fans will pay more for the product? The improved seating and site lines will be much improved, fans will show up.  MU can make more money per game, just maybe they will bring in some better teams as well.  Minny, Northwestern, Duke why not, Wisco, Michigan or Michigan St., why not?
How about UCLA?

That's definitely a possibility.  If MU becomes a perennially top 25 team, attendance will likely go up and higher ticket prices can be sustained.  Become a perennial top 5-10 team and the effect is even greater.

Losing or treading water as a bubble team would have the opposite effect.

[Newsdreams]

MU will have the last laugh when within 7 years MU is a perennial final four team with sold out attendance for every game. Anything less and Wojo should be fired!

[79Warrior]

I don't think we will ever go back to the MECCA. I also don't believe Marquette will allow itself to be so easily pigeonholed into a deal like that in the future.

Easily pigeonholed? How about we have few, if any, other options. In business, the Bucks held all the cards in this situation.

[brewcity77]

Easily pigeonholed? How about we have few, if any, other options. In business, the Bucks held all the cards in this situation.

I wasn't talking about this situation 

[Herman Cain]

Yes, that is what was determined. Which is why this conversation has been about the next round of negotiations that will happen sometime between now and the expiration of this lease. I would hope that Marquette uses that time to do its due diligence and put itself in a better position next time. Because as much as you try to ignore it, there is a magic number at which point it would be better for Marquette to play at the Mecca, or build its own stadium than it would be to play at the Silk Center. I have no idea what the number is but it is there.

I agree with this analysis.

[dgies9156]

MU will have the last laugh when within 7 years MU is a perennial final four team with sold out attendance for every game. Anything less and Wojo should be fired!

MY KINDA GUY!!!!!!!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Then don't say we will NEVER go back. If you believe it's an option to go back at some point, then don't say we will never go back. Dumb? I don't know. I didn't say that.

This conversation was never about if we would ever go back to the Mecca. It was brought up by others and then supported by me that in the next round of negotiations the Mecca would be a more viable option than it was this round and that could be used to help leverage for a better deal. You scoffed and said this was absurd. It was then explained to you repeatedly exactly how it could be used as leverage. You have yet to offer anything in response other than, "we are never going back" which we absolutely would if the Bucks set the price too high and were unwilling to negotiate. Fortunately, the Bucks also need us so if we threaten to walk and go the Mecca, than they will lower the price to something we can afford.

This is why I said we will never go back. Because as long as we have another option and the Bucks need another leasor, the Bucks will drop the price to something more reasonable for Marquette. This is called leverage. Which is what this conversation was about.

[We R Final Four]

No--conversation was you saying "we will NEVER go back to the arena......but we might." That's it. Pretty simple.
You covering both sides. That's it.

I am done with this topic.

[Jay Bee]

...would like to see the renewal options, if any, before getting too deep down the 'what's next?' path... they aren't disclosed anywhere, are they?

[Herman Cain]

No--conversation was you saying "we will NEVER go back to the arena......but we might." That's it. Pretty simple.
You covering both sides. That's it.

I am done with this topic.

This conversation was never about if we would ever go back to the Mecca. It was brought up by others and then supported by me that in the next round of negotiations the Mecca would be a more viable option than it was this round and that could be used to help leverage for a better deal. You scoffed and said this was absurd. It was then explained to you repeatedly exactly how it could be used as leverage. You have yet to offer anything in response other than, "we are never going back" which we absolutely would if the Bucks set the price too high and were unwilling to negotiate. Fortunately, the Bucks also need us so if we threaten to walk and go the Mecca, than they will lower the price to something we can afford.

This is why I said we will never go back. Because as long as we have another option and the Bucks need another leasor, the Bucks will drop the price to something more reasonable for Marquette. This is called leverage. Which is what this conversation was about.

This is an unusal case where I see things the same way as TAMU. If we do not have a viable alternative, the Bucks price goes straight to a retail price.

In real life negotiations,The  Bucks organization fancies themselves as consumer marketers.  Because of their background, they understand that going to the " Old Refrigerator in the Garage" under certain circumstances can be a very viable option for us.  For negotiation purposes the Arena can be positioned as  a "Hinkele" type alternative for MU. There is enough tradition and age at the Arena for that to be a viable threat, as vintage and retro positioning are doing well.  Remember, the Arena was actually a very good place to watch a game. Even theoretically, we could go to Miller Park and try to create a Carrier Dome type configuration. Yes I know that would be complicated, but for our purposes all it has to be is viable. Same goes for going to the Pottawatomie and doing a build to suit sale leaseback on the East End of Valley Fields. At today's cap rates for real estate, we could easily build a 150 to 200 million arena. We could even rename the team the Pottawatomie as part of that deal. Again this is far fetched on surface, but all it needs to have is a whiff of credibility to make a difference from a negotiation perspective . All it needs is one picture of an architect rendering and it becomes semi real. 

 The other elephant in the Bucks negotiating room is that MU with its attendance brings exposure to the Arena 18 times a year plus in the years we are able to get NCAA tournaments additional exposures for the Arena. The Bucks are an organization that is at the bottom of the  NBA in both actual attendance and percentage attendance and they want every possible chance to convert the demand for basketball dollars to their organization. More importantly, The circumstance becomes a big win win if we are doing well and bringing fans to the new Arena and gaining exposure for the Naming Sponsor of the Arena on National TV. The Naming Sponsor has real skin in the game here and we are a big enough percentage of that part of the deal for it to have a real economic impact.  The naming sponsor deal is not done yet and they are going to have a sophisticated marketing consultant on their team, and I can guarantee from past experience, the naming sponsor will insert an economic clause relating to our tenancy remaining in tact. If in fact the naming sponsor is someone like BMO Harris or Northwestern Mutual, MU has the connections to subtly influence that in our favor .

The soft underbelly of guys like the Bucks ownership and management  is that they tend to be too Clever by a Half. We have to always be in a position to exploit that weakness. I think this negotiating experience opened our teams eyes to that.