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

[mu03eng]

Over the years cities like Seattle, New Orleans, Cincinnati, San Diego, Cleveland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Buffalo, Kansas City, Vancouver, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, etc, etc have lost NBA or NHL or NFL teams.

Look at your list again.  A) how many of those cities then got a franchise back after losing?  B) How many of those cities have less than 2 major franchises (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL)?  Vancouver is the only one I think.  Milwaukee would become the 2nd if the Bucks leave.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The current owners lose the franchise if the stadium is not built in Milwaukee when the NBA "buys" it back from.  If that happens, then the team is moving and the valuation potentially changes plus the location changes.

The owners have calculated its cheaper for them to fork over money to help with a stadium than it is to have to re-win the franchise on the open market.  Plus if the team moves it is likely to Seattle, not sure these NYC-based owners want to do the commute if they can even land the team at that point.

Care to retract your idiot statement?

I understand that, and feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that if the team relocates they are compensated for their original investment....in other words, their risk is limited.  Again, if that is wrong, correct me. 

I suspect based on the last two purchases, including the LA Clippers, the valuation is going to do nothing but go up, so they would be making money anyway.  So yes, I would call them idiots.  They either make money on selling the team because of the inflated values that have set the market and willing buyers out there.  Or B, they stay in Milwaukee and don't put any financial risk into it.  Either option, they make money on it.

I'm all ears to why either of those options doesn't work financially for them.   

[Pakuni]

Lots of real innovation does come from public dollars, it just comes very inefficiently and at much greater cost, but you are correct that it comes through sheer brute force, volume of dollars, etc.

Source?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Look at your list again.  A) how many of those cities then got a franchise back after losing?  B) How many of those cities have less than 2 major franchises (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL)?  Vancouver is the only one I think.  Milwaukee would become the 2nd if the Bucks leave.

Off the top of my head

A)
Kansas City never got a basketball team back
Los Angeles has been without a NFL team for 20 years
San Francisco never got a NHL team back (it's in San Jose if you want to quibble)
Cincinnati never got their NBA team back
Cleveland never got their NHL team back
Montreal never got their MLB team back
Atlanta has lost two NHL teams, they don't have one now
Baltimore never got their NBA team back
San Diego never got their NBA team back
Etc.

B)  Not sure, but I think you are right....probably just Vancouver, but I believe some of those cities had less than two for some time period.  New Orleans being one for sure. 

It's not the end of the world as some would like to make it out.

If teams move, it's because they aren't being supported and quite frankly, Milwaukee does a terrible job of supporting the Bucks.  Terrible.

[brewcity77]

I understand that, and feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that if the team relocates they are compensated for their original investment....in other words, their risk is limited.  Again, if that is wrong, correct me. 

I suspect based on the last two purchases, including the LA Clippers, the valuation is going to do nothing but go up, so they would be making money anyway.  So yes, I would call them idiots.  They either make money on selling the team because of the inflated values that have set the market and willing buyers out there.  Or B, they stay in Milwaukee and don't put any financial risk into it.  Either option, they make money on it.

I'm all ears to why either of those options doesn't work financially for them.   

If they sell the team back, it will be at barely a profit over what they spent. Without looking it up, I think they spent $550M, would get $575M if they sell them back to the league. They will not sell to the NBA at open market value prices. It is a set price and my guess is they could find ways to invest $550M over a 2-3 year period that would be more satisfying financially for them than to pocket $25M.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Source?

You'll hate everyone I provide anyway

[Spotcheck Billy]

I understand that, and feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that if the team relocates they are compensated for their original investment....in other words, their risk is limited.  Again, if that is wrong, correct me.  

I suspect based on the last two purchases, including the LA Clippers, the valuation is going to do nothing but go up, so they would be making money anyway.  So yes, I would call them idiots.  They either make money on selling the team because of the inflated values that have set the market and willing buyers out there.  Or B, they stay in Milwaukee and don't put any financial risk into it.  Either option, they make money on it.

I'm all ears to why either of those options doesn't work financially for them.    

if the NBA buys the team back the price is already fixed at $575 million netting them a $25 million profit likely far short of what the team sells for when the NBA sells them to a group in Seattle

[ChicosBailBonds]

If they sell the team back, it will be at barely a profit over what they spent. Without looking it up, I think they spent $550M, would get $575M if they sell them back to the league. They will not sell to the NBA at open market value prices. It is a set price and my guess is they could find ways to invest $550M over a 2-3 year period that would be more satisfying financially for them than to pocket $25M.

Still not a loss for them, meaning no risk.  Yet they are putting in risk by investing several hundred million in a city for a venue in which the city patrons do a really poor job of backing the team?   The much less riskier endeavor here is to have gov't pay for the arena, and if they don't....then walk away with some easy money.

I'm glad they're willing to put the risk out for you guys, it just would never fly out here.  Privately funded or pound sand.  For as ultra-liberal as California is, it is one of the strange twists that takes place out here.

[muwarrior69]

So in 30-35 years they will want to do this all over again. The life span of sports venues these days seems to get shorter and shorter. Quite frankly I preferred the old Giants football stadium to the new Metlife Stadium. Then, what do I know?

[Pakuni]

You'll hate everyone I provide anyway

So, you don't have one.

[brewcity77]

If teams move, it's because they aren't being supported and quite frankly, Milwaukee does a terrible job of supporting the Bucks.  Terrible.

Milwaukee supports a winner. When the Bucks were winning, they drew 16,000-18,000 per year. The problem was more that Herb Kohl didn't want to spend to put a consistent winner on the court. The Bucks will get plenty of support if Lasry and Edens are committed to building the team into a contender. If they can win 45-55 games per season and win a playoff series or two every year with the occasional deep run, the fans will support them.

After the Big 3, Kohl never committed to that (and attendance suffered for it). He thought being a playoff team was good enough, so spent to have a roster that could get the 7th or 8th seed, or just miss out and end up picking at the end of the lottery.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So in 30-35 years they will want to do this all over again. The life span of sports venues these days seems to get shorter and shorter. Quite frankly I preferred the old Giants football stadium to the new Metlife Stadium. Then, what do I know?

More like 15 to 20 years.  Throw away mentality....kick the can....finance it in the out years.   Taxpayers \ gov'ts are going to be paying off stadiums even they are no longer exist, like some owners still pay players (Bobby Bonilla) when they retired years ago. 

[mu03eng]

I understand that, and feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that if the team relocates they are compensated for their original investment....in other words, their risk is limited.  Again, if that is wrong, correct me. 

I suspect based on the last two purchases, including the LA Clippers, the valuation is going to do nothing but go up, so they would be making money anyway.  So yes, I would call them idiots.  They either make money on selling the team because of the inflated values that have set the market and willing buyers out there.  Or B, they stay in Milwaukee and don't put any financial risk into it.  Either option, they make money on it.

I'm all ears to why either of those options doesn't work financially for them.   

The correction is that, if the Bucks move, the current owners essentially get their money back with a slight bump for a couple of years of inflation.....no where near what the valuation would potentially be in 2018.  To make money off their investment it has to stay in Milwaukee.

[Groin_pull]

Milwaukee supports a winner. When the Bucks were winning, they drew 16,000-18,000 per year. The problem was more that Herb Kohl didn't want to spend to put a consistent winner on the court. The Bucks will get plenty of support if Lasry and Edens are committed to building the team into a contender. If they can win 45-55 games per season and win a playoff series or two every year with the occasional deep run, the fans will support them.

After the Big 3, Kohl never committed to that (and attendance suffered for it). He thought being a playoff team was good enough, so spent to have a roster that could get the 7th or 8th seed, or just miss out and end up picking at the end of the lottery.

Wrong. Kohl spent plenty of money—but on the wrong players/coaches.

[mu03eng]

Still not a loss for them, meaning no risk.  Yet they are putting in risk by investing several hundred million in a city for a venue in which the city patrons do a really poor job of backing the team?   The much less riskier endeavor here is to have gov't pay for the arena, and if they don't....then walk away with some easy money.

I'm glad they're willing to put the risk out for you guys, it just would never fly out here.  Privately funded or pound sand.  For as ultra-liberal as California is, it is one of the strange twists that takes place out here.

These are billionaires....they don't spend $550 mil(plus whatever running the team for a number of years costs them) to make $25 mil (less whatever they spent running the team).  Hell it might come out negative running a team for 4 years while lobbying for a fully funded stadium to only get $25 mil on the deal

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, you don't have one.

Actually, I do.

[mu-rara]

These are billionaires....they don't spend $550 mil(plus whatever running the team for a number of years costs them) to make $25 mil (less whatever they spent running the team).  Hell it might come out negative running a team for 4 years while lobbying for a fully funded stadium to only get $25 mil on the deal

These guys are looking for a 4 bagger (or more) over 10-15 years.  That's how you measure success on Wall Street.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Milwaukee supports a winner. When the Bucks were winning, they drew 16,000-18,000 per year. The problem was more that Herb Kohl didn't want to spend to put a consistent winner on the court. The Bucks will get plenty of support if Lasry and Edens are committed to building the team into a contender. If they can win 45-55 games per season and win a playoff series or two every year with the occasional deep run, the fans will support them.

After the Big 3, Kohl never committed to that (and attendance suffered for it). He thought being a playoff team was good enough, so spent to have a roster that could get the 7th or 8th seed, or just miss out and end up picking at the end of the lottery.

Therein lies part of the rub.  These owners are taking a bunch of risk and hoping they can put a winner out there.  If the team doesn't perform, you're saying the folks won't support the team.  Just another reason why they should put the risk on the city and state. 

Maybe the Bucks will be good again someday.  I have my doubts.  I think a lot of NBA players don't want to stick around and play in Milwaukee for their careers.  You might have some good young teams like Sacramento did at times, but I'm not sure it goes for very long.  We'll see what happens with OKC here if Durant jumps ship. 

[mu03eng]

I've been trying not to pump too much doom and gloom into not doing a stadium, but there is something that hasn't even been discussed or accounted for if the Bucks leave.

There are a lot of fundraising and corporate integration between the Bucks and corporations in Southeastern Wisconsin.  If the Bucks leave some of those corporate synergies go away and two things potentially happen:  decreased fundraising for organizations like UPAF and United Way as well as companies being less inclined to stay in Milwaukee because of visibility.

I don't know how you account for that type of cost, but it's real.  If the Bucks leave does Manpower leave soon after?  Not likely but it certainly reduces the desirability of Milwaukee as a destination or a place to stay for major corporations.

[zrjones13]

Therein lies part of the rub.  These owners are taking a bunch of risk and hoping they can put a winner out there.  If the team doesn't perform, you're saying the folks won't support the team.  Just another reason why they should put the risk on the city and state. 

Maybe the Bucks will be good again someday.  I have my doubts.  I think a lot of NBA players don't want to stick around and play in Milwaukee for their careers.  You might have some good young teams like Sacramento did at times, but I'm not sure it goes for very long.  We'll see what happens with OKC here if Durant jumps ship. 

The bucks are in the 6th spot they are making the playoffs.  They have a young core that are on rookie contracts for 2-3 years.  Do you watch the nba?

[brewcity77]

I've been trying not to pump too much doom and gloom into not doing a stadium, but there is something that hasn't even been discussed or accounted for if the Bucks leave.

There are a lot of fundraising and corporate integration between the Bucks and corporations in Southeastern Wisconsin.  If the Bucks leave some of those corporate synergies go away and two things potentially happen:  decreased fundraising for organizations like UPAF and United Way as well as companies being less inclined to stay in Milwaukee because of visibility.

I don't know how you account for that type of cost, but it's real.  If the Bucks leave does Manpower leave soon after?  Not likely but it certainly reduces the desirability of Milwaukee as a destination or a place to stay for major corporations.

There's so much more at stake here than the Bucks. Honestly, I look at this new arena and think this is a chance for the state to spend $50M for the chance to resurrect downtown. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but that's a bargain.

Keeping the Bucks just happens to be a bonus in the deal. I'm far more excited about a sporting beer garden, the hope of attracting conventions back to the city, having people actually moving into the city rather than out of it, which would make Grand Avenue and the rest of the downtown area more relevant and able to thrive.

Maybe it doesn't work, but the worst case scenario is we keep the Bucks, we keep things as they are, and the state has only spent $50M over what they would have to spend in the next two decades anyway. That would also be worth the cost, but the other potential benefits far outweigh that, and without this investment, that potential simply does not exist.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The bucks are in the 6th spot they are making the playoffs.  They have a young core that are on rookie contracts for 2-3 years.  Do you watch the nba?

Nope, I don't watch it.  Had a polite conversation with one of Adam Silver's deputies about it yesterday at the World Sports Congress.

I said good, not NBA playoff eligible.  They have a losing record, I don't equate that to "good".  I don't think the Celtics are good, 6 games under, but they are in the playoffs number 7 spot.  Out here in the west, you don't even sniff the playoffs unless you're like 5 games over .500.  By good, I mean how good the Bucks were back in the day good. 

Yes, they have a young core, which I think will not be here for the longhaul, that was my point.  I don't see Milwaukee being a magnet city for players, but happy to be proven wrong.

[brewcity77]

Yes, they have a young core, which I think will not be here for the longhaul, that was my point.  I don't see Milwaukee being a magnet city for players, but happy to be proven wrong.

Quite possibly right, but if there is a duo that could actually stay together in Milwaukee for the long haul, Giannis and Parker might be it. Rarely do I expect the guys the Bucks take high to stay here. Both of these two have vested themselves in the city moreso than other recent Bucks picks. I think they might surprise people by sticking around.

[source?]

Still not a loss for them, meaning no risk.  Yet they are putting in risk by investing several hundred million in a city for a venue in which the city patrons do a really poor job of backing the team?   The much less riskier endeavor here is to have gov't pay for the arena, and if they don't....then walk away with some easy money.

I'm glad they're willing to put the risk out for you guys, it just would never fly out here.  Privately funded or pound sand.  For as ultra-liberal as California is, it is one of the strange twists that takes place out here.

Sacramento seceded from California? WHo knew?

[Pakuni]

Sacramento seceded from California? WHo knew?

As did Santa Clara, which took out a $850 million loan to build Levi's Stadium.
And San Diego, which pitched in $300 million to help build Petco Park.