A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?

[warriorchick]

Lovell stated that Marquette would be more than willing to make a financial commitment to a new arena. How much money would we be able to realistically contribute? 50 million?

From the general coffers? Zero. 

It would have to be directly from donors.

[Dr. Blackheart]

MU to buy the BC for $50m to call their own but to be deposited for a new NBA arena. All rights retained and free access rights.  Take that deal?  Yes!

[forgetful]

MU to buy the BC for $50m to call their own but to be deposited for a new NBA arena. All rights retained and free access rights.  Take that deal?  Yes!

Heck, some D1 schools lose upwards of $20M per year on their athletic program.  A one time investment of $50M with rights and free access would be a good deal. 

[Galway Eagle]

Like how can it get more bang for its buck elsewhere?  It's this kind of small minded thinking that hampers cities all over the country.  What can Milwaukee spend $200 million on that will generate its name in the news nationally, and to an extent globally....at least 82 times per year....year after year after year. 

I mean Jesus, Kansas City is trying to lure an NBA team.  Oklahoma City is suddenly a lot more known/talked about/recognized since the Thunder got to OKC - and it has energized that city, and given it a rallying point as a community to get behind.  Just as MKE does when the Bucks have been good and the Brewers have been good.  Sports is the only common denominator in society that largely brings people together regardless of age, religion, race, income level, and even gender. 

But, MKE can just let go of an asset other cities clamor for...and revert into a Des Moines or Omaha.

The DMV would also fit in that category

[GGGG]

Like how can it get more bang for its buck elsewhere?  It's this kind of small minded thinking that hampers cities all over the country.  What can Milwaukee spend $200 million on that will generate its name in the news nationally, and to an extent globally....at least 82 times per year....year after year after year. 

I mean Jesus, Kansas City is trying to lure an NBA team.  Oklahoma City is suddenly a lot more known/talked about/recognized since the Thunder got to OKC - and it has energized that city, and given it a rallying point as a community to get behind.  Just as MKE does when the Bucks have been good and the Brewers have been good.  Sports is the only common denominator in society that largely brings people together regardless of age, religion, race, income level, and even gender. 

But, MKE can just let go of an asset other cities clamor for...and revert into a Des Moines or Omaha.

Have you ever been to Des Moines and Omaha?  Both of them are very nice, high quality cities that are (IMO) much nicer than OKC.  There is absolutely no doubt that professional sports adds to the quality of life to a city, but that has to be balanced against the costs involved.  And economically, it has been shown repeatedly to not have the payback people assume it will.

Really, are cities like Cincinnati, Kansas City, San Diego and Seattle any different today than they would have been if they had hung on to their NBA teams?  All four of them have other sports franchises and a pretty high standard of living.  Dropping that kind of cash on a new arena out of fear of losing a team isn't a smart idea IMO.

And regardless, Milwaukee has the Brewers.

[NersEllenson]

Have you ever been to Des Moines and Omaha?  Both of them are very nice, high quality cities that are (IMO) much nicer than OKC.  There is absolutely no doubt that professional sports adds to the quality of life to a city, but that has to be balanced against the costs involved.  And economically, it has been shown repeatedly to not have the payback people assume it will.

Really, are cities like Cincinnati, Kansas City, San Diego and Seattle any different today than they would have been if they had hung on to their NBA teams?  All four of them have other sports franchises and a pretty high standard of living.  Dropping that kind of cash on a new arena out of fear of losing a team isn't a smart idea IMO.

And regardless, Milwaukee has the Brewers.

I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.

When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee.  Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year.  Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.

I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return?  A trolley system?  Light rail?  ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)

Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc.  It just makes for a better and more vibrant city.  Period.

[Texas Western]

I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.

When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee.  Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year.  Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.

I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return?  A trolley system?  Light rail?  ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)

Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc.  It just makes for a better and more vibrant city.  Period.

I agree with the above. Also  it enhances our basketball standing at MU because we are so closely linked to the Bucks  by proximity and shared facility.

[ThatDude]

I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.

When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee.  Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year.  Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.

I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return?  A trolley system?  Light rail?  ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)

Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc.  It just makes for a better and more vibrant city.  Period.

+1000

[kmwtrucks]

I think we all agree that a $500 mil publically funded stadium is not going to happen.  And if that was what they were asking for I would be fine letting them walk.  But figuring Between Herb and the New Owners kicking in (for the sake of Argument) 250-300 Mil That only leaves 200 Mil from public funds and other private investment.  At some point it just makes to much sense for both MU and MKE to not make it happen.  I also love the Idea of partnering in on the New stadium and getting some type of discounted Rent to get our money back.  Everything about the New Stadium would be a positive for MKE and MU (when you take away the cost of it). So if MU has to come up with 25-50 and gets rent at 1/2 price and MKE has to come up with 100 Mil and gets its money back from Ticket tax's and Tax Revenue and some share of something else why would people be against it. 

[4everwarriors]

When your endowment is 400 mil., ya ain't spendin' 50 of it on an antiquated, obsolete, rundown, concrete, POS, aina?

[Litehouse]

We always talk about how Marquette's basketball team is a marketing tool for the University.  The same holds true for Milwaukee, the Bucks are a marketing tool for the city trying to bring in business and visitors.

[GGGG]

I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.

When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee.  Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year.  Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.

I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return?  A trolley system?  Light rail?  ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)

Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc.  It just makes for a better and more vibrant city.  Period.

There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises.  If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine.  But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear.  If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city.  However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.

[warriorchick]

When your endowment is 400 mil., ya ain't spendin' 50 of it on an antiquated, obsolete, rundown, concrete, POS, aina?

Especially when there are other POS right on campus that are even more antiquated, obsolete, and run down.

BTW, you are not supposed to "spend" an endowment. 

[dgies9156]

I'm not saying Des Moines and Omaha aren't nice cities - I'm saying that they lack any presence or relevance on a national or even global scale, from the perspective of awareness/frequent mention in the national media.

When MKE drafted the Chinese guy, it brought a ton of exposure to Milwaukee.  Even with the Bucks being awful, the city name still gets mentioned on Sports Center 82 nights a year.  Now when the team is good - a different ball game - more exposure, more mention, more civic pride, more sense of community, etc.

I'd just like to know how a city like MKE could spend $200 million and generate a better return?  A trolley system?  Light rail?  ($200 million might get you a 4 miles of light rail or trolley line.)

Additionally, it is a nice amenity to have a pro sports team downtown - even for casual business travelers to take in a game, for convention attendees etc.  It just makes for a better and more vibrant city.  Period.

OK, lets get down to the real issue. Milwaukee has a host of urban problems it needs to address. The region has lost an enormous number of jobs during the past 40 years. Those jobs have not been replaced, leaving the city with a vast, underpaid, former middle class. The social service, education and infrastructure problems are immense. Add to that the fact that since 1970, the country has increased in population by 50% and the Milwaukee area has been relatively static suggests the quality of life has taken an enormous hit. Building a basketball arena will not fix any of this nor will it suddenly make Milwaukee more desirable.

Instead of building a new arena, the leadership of Southeast Wisconsin needs to be repairing tax and regulatory structures. At the very least, Southeast Wisconsin leaders should wake up and realize that  Milwaukee County is not the obvious place for starting or enlarging a business. No new arena is going to change that.

For Marquette, our school's all-in annual cost is now at or near $50,000. Does anyone on this board really think Marquette would be morally or ethically responsible building a new arena, or supporting the construction of a new arena, amid a tuition cost that either is confiscatory or will plunge a student into debt until their own children are ready for college? I'd like to see someone who is Jesuit educated justify that.

Bottom line: A new arena is very nice. Having a professional basketball team -- or whatever the Bucks are -- also is very nice. But it necessarily is a low public priority compared to a host of broader concerns the region has.

[Galway Eagle]

There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises.  If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine.  But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear.  If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city.  However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.

I think comparing an nba stadium to a baseball stadium when baseball attendence has been hugely dropping is a poor comparison. Personally I disagree with you. I think a tremendous amount of bar money (particularly on old world third) comes from bucks fans. The hotels make good money when they play the bulls. I'm sure there's also an effect for the casino.  A stadium like that is easily responsible for a few thousand jobs between engineers, janitors, concession stands, security, etc.  I know there's plenty of cities that are fine without a team but many of those don't quite have the winters we do so it's easier to make outdoor events during winter, have a football team smack dab in the city to actually pump money in there, or have other tourist attractions (see space needle in Seattle) MKE is a great city but we all went to MU or lived around it or around Chicago to figure that out the rest of the country doesn't know that so we need all the help we can get.  I mean heck I only just found out Omaha wasn't a bunch of farms

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises.  If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine.  But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear.  If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city.  However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.

This is exactly right.

- The Bucks provide civic pride, but it really only has a large scale impact when they are good. Since 1990, they haven't been very good very often. That's 25 years. New ownership will help, but the NBA business model is not very kind to small markets. Salary cap helps, but also hurts because players are routinely bolting for more favorable markets.

- As far as bang-for-the-buck, well, if the stadium is part of a larger scale 50 year city development plan, then I think it can be a good idea. (convention center, mass transit, corp. offices, etc.)

- If building a new arena is just to keep the Bucks here, then I don't think it provides enough economic impact. Several studies out there to illustrate this.

- As far as ways to invest 200million? I'm not a city planner, so I can't pretend to know everything. But, I will say that I'm not sure that's it's good for Milwaukee to copy other cities. NBA arena and restaurants. Great. Never seen that before.

Maybe the 200-500mil could be used for something more innovative? Maybe Milwaukee could leverage more of it's natural resources (ie Lake Michigan, forestry, mining, agriculture, etc.) to differentiate it from other cities and drive the economy with something that can't simply be taken away (like a NBA franchise).  Invest in something that can benefit the city and its residents long term, not just something that gets people to pay $9 for a beer and $20 for parking. Think big picture.  

[GGGG]

I think comparing an nba stadium to a baseball stadium when baseball attendence has been hugely dropping is a poor comparison. Personally I disagree with you. I think a tremendous amount of bar money (particularly on old world third) comes from bucks fans. The hotels make good money when they play the bulls. I'm sure there's also an effect for the casino.  A stadium like that is easily responsible for a few thousand jobs between engineers, janitors, concession stands, security, etc.  I know there's plenty of cities that are fine without a team but many of those don't quite have the winters we do so it's easier to make outdoor events during winter, have a football team smack dab in the city to actually pump money in there, or have other tourist attractions (see space needle in Seattle) MKE is a great city but we all went to MU or lived around it or around Chicago to figure that out the rest of the country doesn't know that so we need all the help we can get.  I mean heck I only just found out Omaha wasn't a bunch of farms

Sorry, your geographical ignorance notwithstanding, economic study after economic study has shown that building arenas and stadiums for professional sports teams does not have an economic payback. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92368114/Stadium-Bonds

"Unfortunately, independent academic research studies consistently conclude that new stadiums and arenas  have no measurable effect on the level of real income or employment in the metropolitan areas in which they are located.  Feasibility studies for professional sports facilities often fail to account for the substitution effect. Individuals generally maintain a consistent level of entertainment spending so money spent on sporting events typically comes at the expense of cash spent in restaurants, on travel, and at movie theaters."

[Benny B]

Sorry, your geographical ignorance notwithstanding, economic study after economic study has shown that building arenas and stadiums for professional sports teams does not have an economic payback.  

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92368114/Stadium-Bonds

"Unfortunately, independent academic research studies consistently conclude that new stadiums and arenas  have no measurable effect on the level of real income or employment in the metropolitan areas in which they are located.  Feasibility studies for professional sports facilities often fail to account for the substitution effect. Individuals generally maintain a consistent level of entertainment spending so money spent on sporting events typically comes at the expense of cash spent in restaurants, on travel, and at movie theaters."

The quote comes from a paper titled "The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development" which was written in 2000 and cites studies dated between 1990 and 1999.

In other words, your "independent academic research" is 15-25 years out of date.

[GGGG]

The quote comes from a paper titled "The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development" which was written in 2000 and cites studies dated between 1990 and 1999.

In other words, your "independent academic research" is 15-25 years out of date.

Well I'm sure if it is inaccurate you could provide something counter to it right?

Regardless, here is one from 2011 that says the same thing.

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/10/Johnson-Article-Spring-2011.pdf

[Benny B]

Well I'm sure if it is inaccurate you could provide something counter to it right?

Regardless, here is one from 2011 that says the same thing.

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/10/Johnson-Article-Spring-2011.pdf

Notwithstanding the fact that your new link cites your original citation and some of its the same sources and others materials from the same time period (the 1990s -- and just so we're clear, this time I am using it to describe the actual time period from 1/1/1990 to 12/31/1999), and amongst it's more recent references is an unpublished Master's thesis that happens to be "on file with the author."

I'm not disputing what you're saying, but I'm also not agreeing with it.  I'd just like to see some more relevant research that takes into account economic activity over the past 10 years.  Using economic research done during the 1990s to justify an argument in 2014 doesn't seem very defensible.

And something written for a law journal hardly qualifies as "academic research."

[Ari Gold]

- As far as ways to invest 200million? I'm not a city planner, so I can't pretend to know everything. But, I will say that I'm not sure that's it's good for Milwaukee to copy other cities. NBA arena and restaurants. Great. Never seen that before.

Maybe the 200-500mil could be used for something more innovative? Maybe Milwaukee could leverage more of it's natural resources (ie Lake Michigan, forestry, mining, agriculture, etc.) to differentiate it from other cities and drive the economy with something that can't simply be taken away (like a NBA franchise).  Invest in something that can benefit the city and its residents long term, not just something that gets people to pay $9 for a beer and $20 for parking. Think big picture. 

This part is so, so wrong. 
Anyone paying attention would know that right now there is ~$300m of private money ready for a new arena.
The legislative leaders have consistently said they didn't want the arena to have public funding. They've since come around to say "limited" financing, some sort of TIF will be likely.  The city is not going to

It's not like the city will get a check for this alleged "$200-500m" earmarked for an arena.  if a new arena isn't built that money goes back to the investors, not the city is not going to strangle itself with debt. in fact the new owners have gone out of their way to ensure the city/county/state would don that. They've been more proactive in aiding new arena financing that a boat load of owners.

Also Milwaukee doesn't really have any natural resources besides the lake, which is already developing independently with the Water Council and is doing a great job differentiating itself from other cities. There are like 2 farms in Milwaukee and all mining is done up in the Northern part of the state, sand is big in North Central.

If you want to think big picture, look to the couture, the new Northwestern Mutual building and all that corporate development. An arena can be part of this. Having the Bucks and that arena can aid in making Milwaukee a desirable place for business.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This part is so, so wrong. 
Anyone paying attention would know that right now there is ~$300m of private money ready for a new arena.
The legislative leaders have consistently said they didn't want the arena to have public funding. They've since come around to say "limited" financing, some sort of TIF will be likely.  The city is not going to

It's not like the city will get a check for this alleged "$200-500m" earmarked for an arena.  if a new arena isn't built that money goes back to the investors, not the city is not going to strangle itself with debt. in fact the new owners have gone out of their way to ensure the city/county/state would don that. They've been more proactive in aiding new arena financing that a boat load of owners.

Also Milwaukee doesn't really have any natural resources besides the lake, which is already developing independently with the Water Council and is doing a great job differentiating itself from other cities. There are like 2 farms in Milwaukee and all mining is done up in the Northern part of the state, sand is big in North Central.

If you want to think big picture, look to the couture, the new Northwestern Mutual building and all that corporate development. An arena can be part of this. Having the Bucks and that arena can aid in making Milwaukee a desirable place for business.

All fair points. If the stadium funding is the right mix of taxes and private funds, then it can make sense.

Also, as I stated earlier, if the stadium is part of a larger city planning initiative, (northwestern mutual, etc.) then it can make sense.

As far as the alternatives, those are just thoughts off of the top of my head. I'm not a city planner, geologist, entrepreneur, or CEO, so I don't have the background to make big claims. My only point is that if Milwaukee is thinking BIG PICTURE, I'm not sure that copying what other cities have (NBA arena, bars, restaurants, etc.) is the best play for long term growth. I'd be interested to see what else could be done.

I think an arena COULD be a good idea, but it needs to have the correct vision to make it work.

[warriorchick]

Whether or not Milwaukee needs a new stadium, it is clear to me that Marquette does not need one.

• It is already playing in a better facility than at least 90% of D1 schools.  If you include convenience to campus, it's probably 95%.
• A new arena's impact on recruiting or attendance will be minimal at best.  Feel free to dispute this with hard facts, though.  Rupp Arena is a POS, yet Kentucky seems to have no problem attracting both top athletes and fans.
• There are at least a half-dozen facilities on campus that are in greater need of replacement than our basketball stadium.

Barring a business plan that proves that it makes sense for the university from an economic standpoint (putting money up front in exchange for free use of the facility for 20 years, for example), I don't see how anyone who truly believes in the overall mission of the University could  support MU spending money on this.

[NersEllenson]

There are all sorts of cities that do just fine economically and provide a high standard of living that don't have NBA franchises.  If Milwaukee wants to build the arena simply because they want to keep the Bucks, that's fine.  But I don't think the city should fall over itself to build an arena simply out of fear.  If Milwaukee loses the Bucks, I don't think it would have much impact on the future of the city.  However strangling themselves with a debt burden similar to what Miami has done with Marlins Stadium could have really bad long term fiscal consequences without the promised payback.

I see your point - An NBA franchise is NOT in any way tied to having a high standard of living for a city.  There are very nice cities all over the country that don't have NBA teams - Austin, TX comes to mind.  San Diego.  Those cities also have a ton of appeal, draw and pull as it is without professional sports teams.

I agree that if Milwaukee loses the Bucks, it won't have much impact on the future of the city - it will survive and people will not flee in mass exodus.  Having said that however, the city won't be considered big league, will rarely ever be heard of in the news, it will lose a fun civic asset and team that can unite the city.

My point is that I don't know what MKE could spend 200-300 million on that could provide a similar set of benefits.  MKE was a whisker away from losing the Brewers - think if they left?  And now people being indifferent or saying, let the Bucks go too?  Kids growing up in the State of Wisconsin would now have a pro football team to root for, and that's it.  Families from central and northern WI no longer would make trips to MKE for Brewers games, Bucks games, etc., and not spend money in MKE.

It is really, really short-sighted thinking to let a pro sports franchise walk from a city over 200-300 million.  If franchises weren't of value, you wouldn't have other cities such as KC, Vegas, Seattle, clamoring over getting a team.  Ever since Seattle let the Sonics go, they've been trying to get a team back.  People don't know what they have till its gone.  I'd imagine MKE went through withdrawals when the Braves left - and were ecstatic when the Brewers came back to town.

MKE needs to get some kind of progressive thinking. 

[Texas Western]

I see your point - An NBA franchise is NOT in any way tied to having a high standard of living for a city.  There are very nice cities all over the country that don't have NBA teams - Austin, TX comes to mind.  San Diego.  Those cities also have a ton of appeal, draw and pull as it is without professional sports teams.

I agree that if Milwaukee loses the Bucks, it won't have much impact on the future of the city - it will survive and people will not flee in mass exodus.  Having said that however, the city won't be considered big league, will rarely ever be heard of in the news, it will lose a fun civic asset and team that can unite the city.

My point is that I don't know what MKE could spend 200-300 million on that could provide a similar set of benefits.  MKE was a whisker away from losing the Brewers - think if they left?  And now people being indifferent or saying, let the Bucks go too?  Kids growing up in the State of Wisconsin would now have a pro football team to root for, and that's it.  Families from central and northern WI no longer would make trips to MKE for Brewers games, Bucks games, etc., and not spend money in MKE.

It is really, really short-sighted thinking to let a pro sports franchise walk from a city over 200-300 million.  If franchises weren't of value, you wouldn't have other cities such as KC, Vegas, Seattle, clamoring over getting a team.  Ever since Seattle let the Sonics go, they've been trying to get a team back.  People don't know what they have till its gone.  I'd imagine MKE went through withdrawals when the Braves left - and were ecstatic when the Brewers came back to town.

MKE needs to get some kind of progressive thinking. 

I think the League buyback clause ensures that the arena will get built here.  These guys know they have something good and will raise the money. My sense is they will raise the money in the bond market, and they may get some some form of limited government guarantees to support the bond issue. There is a new TV contract coming up and that will make the numbers work.

At the end of the day I think we will end up with an NHL franchise as part of all of this.