Bucks to unveil $500 million stadium plan just north of BC

[brewcity77]

Maybe, though if they are building arenas now to only last 45 years before they fall down by themselves, that's a sad state of affairs.  Feels like "need" and "want" are being used as synonyms.

That's everywhere, and not just arenas. Always finding cheaper, more efficient ways to build definitely doesn't translate to better.

[zrjones13]

Maybe, though if they are building arenas now to only last 45 years before they fall down by themselves, that's a sad state of affairs.  Feels like "need" and "want" are being used as synonyms.

I feel when the old arena needs 100 million dollars for upkeep in the next 10 years, that leans the needle towards needs.

[The Lens]

I might be the biggest Bucks fan you know but I also see what Canned Goods sees.  For that reason I have thought the Billionaires should acquire a MLS team, build a modest soccer stadium (could also double as a summer concert venue) and really have 12 months of entertainment options in the district plus 12 sponsorship inventory to sell.

MLS expansion fees & stadiums are about 20% the cost of the same for the Bucks.  If I was to bet on any two sports leagues right now, it would be NBA & MLS.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was at the World Sports Congress meetings today.  Manfred gave the opening speech, Adam Silver spoke, Bob Iger (Disney CEO), David Falk, and others all spoke or were on panels.  Our buddy, Len Elmore was honored with an award.  I would have loved to have gone over and given him a few tips from the MU Scoopers.

Part of the conversations were about the value of franchises and building new stadiums.  The owner of the Golden State Warriors was on a panel and talking about the absurdity that fans see things like franchise values and in their minds translate that to instant dollars.  He gave some examples of the risk involved that owners take to fund wholly or partially (depending on the city) for these new stadiums, but they still have to service the debt, make a go of it year in and year out.  The valuations are nice, but they don't mean a damn thing unless you sell the team.

The conversation got into what true value stadiums bring to cities and there was a good debate on this.  Appropriately, the commentary turned to studies that can prove both sides of the argument depending on what you are measuring, often who is paying for the research, etc. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Related to my previous post, out here in LA we have this mad dash after 20 years to build a football stadium so studies are done to find out what exactly does this mean to the city and surrounding area?

Very little.  http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/02/17/49831/new-nfl-team-would-likely-have-little-economic-imp/

Article last year about the ROI of new stadiums and how they rarely come close to doing what all the puffery states they will do.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/stadium-frenzy-ignores-economics/190351/

[source?]

I might be the biggest Bucks fan you know but I also see what Canned Goods sees.  For that reason I have thought the Billionaires should acquire a MLS team, build a modest soccer stadium (could also double as a summer concert venue) and really have 12 months of entertainment options in the district plus 12 sponsorship inventory to sell.

MLS expansion fees & stadiums are about 20% the cost of the same for the Bucks.  If I was to bet on any two sports leagues right now, it would be NBA & MLS.  

MLS season runs concurrently with MLB season. I doubt we have the population base to support two summer/fall pro teams. The issue of needing a new arena is also not addressed by letting the Bucks walk. We either have to get rid of the BC or put $100 million into it to keep it running. If we get rid of it we lose most major concerts, acts, and other events. A city the size of Milwaukee needs a large indoor entertainment venue. Once again, do we let the Bucks pay over half the cost and recoup further through their income and property taxes, or do we build it ourselves at 100% taxpayer cost in 20 years?

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/7/coates.pdf

Analysis that new stadiums could actually REDUCE per capita income

[source?]

Related to my previous post, out here in LA we have this mad dash after 20 years to build a football stadium so studies are done to find out what exactly does this mean to the city and surrounding area?

Very little.  http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/02/17/49831/new-nfl-team-would-likely-have-little-economic-imp/

Article last year about the ROI of new stadiums and how they rarely come close to doing what all the puffery states they will do.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/stadium-frenzy-ignores-economics/190351/

Wait a minute, how can ants carry ten times their weight but somehow root beer floats are still delicious? This is irrelevant.

My point is that whether the building spurs new development or not, it will be needed in the not so distant future. What do we do then? The Bucks are already a valuable asset to the city on several fronts, financial and otherwise. We should try to keep them around, but the new arena is going to be required eventually whether they stay or not.

[forgetful]

Related to my previous post, out here in LA we have this mad dash after 20 years to build a football stadium so studies are done to find out what exactly does this mean to the city and surrounding area?

Very little.  http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/02/17/49831/new-nfl-team-would-likely-have-little-economic-imp/

Article last year about the ROI of new stadiums and how they rarely come close to doing what all the puffery states they will do.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/stadium-frenzy-ignores-economics/190351/

Chico's I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance.  But, it is impossible to determine if building an arena/not building an arena has a positive/negative/no impact on the local and state economy.  There are too many variables to accurately analyze such a scenario.  The result is a lot of opinions that they back with their own numbers.

[zrjones13]

Chico's I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance.  But, it is impossible to determine if building an arena/not building an arena has a positive/negative/no impact on the local and state economy.  There are too many variables to accurately analyze such a scenario.  The result is a lot of opinions that they back with their own numbers.

Also a city like LA might not be a good comparison since they have 7 other pro sports teams.  If the bucks leave I don't think I will spend that money on other entertainment downtown.  I only go to about 5 bucks games a year, but that is still about 400 bucks with drinks, parking, and ticket.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico's I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your stance.  But, it is impossible to determine if building an arena/not building an arena has a positive/negative/no impact on the local and state economy.  There are too many variables to accurately analyze such a scenario.  The result is a lot of opinions that they back with their own numbers.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but when you hear someone or an organization say that doing this stuff means $X  tons of money for the city, surrounding region, etc.....be very skeptical. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Also a city like LA might not be a good comparison since they have 7 other pro sports teams.  If the bucks leave I don't think I will spend that money on other entertainment downtown.  I only go to about 5 bucks games a year, but that is still about 400 bucks with drinks, parking, and ticket.

Plenty of other examples in the links I provided that are akin to Milwaukee sized city.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wait a minute, how can ants carry ten times their weight but somehow root beer floats are still delicious? This is irrelevant.

My point is that whether the building spurs new development or not, it will be needed in the not so distant future. What do we do then? The Bucks are already a valuable asset to the city on several fronts, financial and otherwise. We should try to keep them around, but the new arena is going to be required eventually whether they stay or not.

Again, need vs desire\want.  That's a big difference.  I fully understand the want by the Bucks...suite revenue, more space for advertisers, food, etc, etc....all equal potential revenue streams for the Bucks (doesn't mean money well spent by the city, but I get  the want).  The challenge I have with some of these projects is their enormous cost and the "throw away" mentality we have after 20 years.  My God, we used to build stadiums in this country that lasted 75 years without batting an eye.   Now we throw them away after 20 years.....after 10 years owners start the bitching process that it isn't good enough any longer.   A lot of other things can be used with that money and perfectly sound edifices are torn to the ground where 19,000 human beings could watch entertainment to be replaced by a building that also seats 19,000 people but has more suites and an extra 5 restaurants, etc.

[zrjones13]

Again, need vs desire\want.  That's a big difference.  I fully understand the want by the Bucks...suite revenue, more space for advertisers, food, etc, etc....all equal potential revenue streams for the Bucks (doesn't mean money well spent by the city, but I get  the want).  The challenge I have with some of these projects is their enormous cost and the "throw away" mentality we have after 20 years.  My God, we used to build stadiums in this country that lasted 75 years without batting an eye.   Now we throw them away after 20 years.....after 10 years owners start the bitching process that it isn't good enough any longer.   A lot of other things can be used with that money and perfectly sound edifices are torn to the ground where 19,000 human beings could watch entertainment to be replaced by a building that also seats 19,000 people but has more suites and an extra 5 restaurants, etc.

Correct but in this case we are at a fork in the road the arena either needs to be replaced or the old one needs 100 million in the next 10 years.  If we chose the second option we lose the bucks and eventually would have to build a new arena paid for with all private money. 

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but when you hear someone or an organization say that doing this stuff means $X  tons of money for the city, surrounding region, etc.....be very skeptical. 

Chicos is soft pedaling this, the economic impact numbers are made up propaganda to get the project passed.  Besides economic impact numbers are largely zero sum.  Most Bucks fans are Milwaukee residents and the would have spent those dollars somewhere else in the Milwaukee area.

No stadium is economically viable.  If they were, the Bucks would be building it pocketing the profits.  They would not be demanding the city do it.

[jsglow]

Chicos is soft pedaling this, the economic impact numbers are made up propaganda to get the project passed.  Besides economic impact numbers are largely zero sum.  Most Bucks fans are Milwaukee residents and the would have spent those dollars somewhere else in the Milwaukee area.

No stadium is economically viable.  If they were, the Bucks would be building it pocketing the profits.  They would not be demanding the city do it.

I agree with this but it still doesn't change the very basic equation.  Spend $150M to retain the Bucks, keep the player tax revenue, etc. vs. spend $100M to support the Bradley Center after we lose the Bucks.  I think it can be argued that this is at worst a revenue neutral proposition.  That's what I've come to appreciate.  It's really that simple.  Everything else simply clouds that basic analysis.

And it's why those who think that Marquette should build one are foolish.  If you think about it.  We're getting the sweet end of this deal.  I wonder if pressure will mount for a MU kick in.  I hope not.  City and county need to take a bigger bite first.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Can someone actually back up this $100MM over 10 years claim rather than just regurgitating it? And I don't mean quoting anyone from the Bradley Center or the Buck's organization. An independent source.

$10MM each year, even if true, is not that much for a sports stadium as large as the Bradley Center. What, a new stadium is going to have ZERO maintenance costs? In Milwaukee's beautiful 6 month winters? Please.

I think the new stadium should be built, as long as the city and county promise to kick in given that they will be the primary beneficiaries. But the ridiculous arguments from supporters are just going to further annoy the critics.

[jsglow]

Can someone actually back up this $100MM over 10 years claim rather than just regurgitating it? And I don't mean quoting anyone from the Bradley Center or the Buck's organization. An independent source.

$10MM each year, even if true, is not that much for a sports stadium as large as the Bradley Center. What, a new stadium is going to have ZERO maintenance costs? In Milwaukee's beautiful 6 month winters? Please.

I think the new stadium should be built, as long as the city and county promise to kick in given that they will be the primary beneficiaries. But the ridiculous arguments from supporters are just going to further annoy the critics.

If memory serves the entire HVAC system needs replacement and has been long deferred.  Also, would expect that a 100% seat replacement is in order.

[esotericmindguy]

I was at the World Sports Congress meetings today.  Manfred gave the opening speech, Adam Silver spoke, Bob Iger (Disney CEO), David Falk, and others all spoke or were on panels.  Our buddy, Len Elmore was honored with an award.  I would have loved to have gone over and given him a few tips from the MU Scoopers.

Part of the conversations were about the value of franchises and building new stadiums.  The owner of the Golden State Warriors was on a panel and talking about the absurdity that fans see things like franchise values and in their minds translate that to instant dollars.  He gave some examples of the risk involved that owners take to fund wholly or partially (depending on the city) for these new stadiums, but they still have to service the debt, make a go of it year in and year out.  The valuations are nice, but they don't mean a damn thing unless you sell the team.

The conversation got into what true value stadiums bring to cities and there was a good debate on this.  Appropriately, the commentary turned to studies that can prove both sides of the argument depending on what you are measuring, often who is paying for the research, etc. 

Poor billionaire owner. I'd feel like slapping him. Don't like the risk, sell the team. Don't want the risk, don't buy the team. No one wants to buy, move the team. It's not absurd, most people are living paycheck to paycheck and he thinks they should fund their stadiums? Stadiums only bring value when the team is competitive, and when the team is competitive the arena doesn't matter.

Ziggy Wilf whined about the same thing here in MN. As predicted by most everyone, he'll have his investment back in 3-5 years. Seat licensing, naming rights, increased income, and yes, value of the team. Meanwhile, this ridiculous gaming tax they came up with is creating about 10% of it's predicted income. They play 10 home games a year.

[mu03eng]

If memory serves the entire HVAC system needs replacement and has been long deferred.  Also, would expect that a 100% seat replacement is in order.

HVAC system definitely has to be replaced in the upper bowl....just ask my wife who wears 6 layers because the system is blowing out cold air in section 422   

I also believe there are some major refurb on the concrete pillars around the stadium that needs to be done.

And inferiority, the $100mil in the next 10 years is over and above standard maintenance costs.  So the standard maintenance with a new or old is still going on, plus you have the $100mil on top to keep it operating safely.

[forgetful]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but when you hear someone or an organization say that doing this stuff means $X  tons of money for the city, surrounding region, etc.....be very skeptical. 

Oh, I agree.  Stating that it means $X tons of money also cannot be proven.  It is also just an opinion backed by arbitrary numbers.

[MU111]

I agree with this but it still doesn't change the very basic equation.  Spend $150M to retain the Bucks, keep the player tax revenue, etc. vs. spend $100M to support the Bradley Center after we lose the Bucks.  I think it can be argued that this is at worst a revenue neutral proposition.  That's what I've come to appreciate.  It's really that simple.  Everything else simply clouds that basic analysis.

And it's why those who think that Marquette should build one are foolish.  If you think about it.  We're getting the sweet end of this deal.  I wonder if pressure will mount for a MU kick in.  I hope not.  City and county need to take a bigger bite first.

I think it's important for everyone to remember that we're not simply talking a $150 to $200 million cost to the public.  If, for example, the state does decide to go with $200 million in bonding, it's been estimated that taxpayers would actually pay over $400 million to factor in interest costs.  Why is this completely ignored in the media?

Keep in mind, I don't want to lose the Bucks any more than the next person.  I think it's important to plan big and to dream big.  However, I have serious issues when there is a lack of transparency in terms of costs to the public for a private business that is going to make its billionaire owners an enormous profit over the course of their investment.

[jsglow]

I think it's important for everyone to remember that we're not simply talking a $150 to $200 million cost to the public.  If, for example, the state does decide to go with $200 million in bonding, it's been estimated that taxpayers would actually pay over $400 million to factor in interest costs.  Why is this completely ignored in the media?

Keep in mind, I don't want to lose the Bucks any more than the next person.  I think it's important to plan big and to dream big.  However, I have serious issues when there is a lack of transparency in terms of costs to the public for a private business that is going to make its billionaire owners an enormous profit over the course of their investment.

Huh?  Are you forgetting about the earmarking of the incremental jock tax in the Governor's proposal?  Caveat:  I know that there are competing financing plans and I know that the taxpayers will be contingently liable for bond payments under Walker's proposal.  But to say that the taxpayers will be footing the bill is inaccurate.

[jsglow]

HVAC system definitely has to be replaced in the upper bowl....just ask my wife who wears 6 layers because the system is blowing out cold air in section 422   

I also believe there are some major refurb on the concrete pillars around the stadium that needs to be done.

And inferiority, the $100mil in the next 10 years is over and above standard maintenance costs.  So the standard maintenance with a new or old is still going on, plus you have the $100mil on top to keep it operating safely.

Thanks 03eng.  I do believe that much of this has been pretty well documented.  I guess it can be argued that the Board should have taken care of this already but it would have to come out of John Q. Public's pocket either way.

[jsglow]

Poor billionaire owner. I'd feel like slapping him. Don't like the risk, sell the team. Don't want the risk, don't buy the team. No one wants to buy, move the team. It's not absurd, most people are living paycheck to paycheck and he thinks they should fund their stadiums? Stadiums only bring value when the team is competitive, and when the team is competitive the arena doesn't matter.

Ziggy Wilf whined about the same thing here in MN. As predicted by most everyone, he'll have his investment back in 3-5 years. Seat licensing, naming rights, increased income, and yes, value of the team. Meanwhile, this ridiculous gaming tax they came up with is creating about 10% of it's predicted income. They play 10 home games a year.

And normally i would agree with you.  But look at your two alternatives.  There is zero chance you can have your cake and eat it too.  I was also open to losing the Bucks.  But it can be argued that it's CHEAPER to keep them.  Crazy, I know but factually and logically sound.