A New Stadium For The 2017 Season?

[jficke13]

It's kind of fun to watch the Deadspin-Hates-Stadiums-Effect play out here.

[jficke13]

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

The NHL did recently say it plans on expanding.

[source?]

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

Are you thinking we will wind up with both? I don't know that we have the population/fan base to support an additional pro team, especially since Hockey and Basketball seasons overlap quite a bit. I wouldn't mind a trade, the Bucks for an NHL franchise, and the BC would probably suffice fine for an NHL franchise.

[Litehouse]

No way I'd trade the Bucks for an NHL franchise.  That does absolutely nothing for me.  NHL is still an afterthought for most sports fans.

[Aughnanure]

The NHL did recently say it plans on expanding.

Well that's stupid.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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'd argue that building a new arena out of fear is short sighted.

If they can get the right mix of private and public funding, and they can use a new arena in a 50 year city development vision, then great, build away.

If this is a "gun-to-the-head" scenario, then building a new arena without a long term urban development plan is short sighted and a giant waste.

[MU82]

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.

I agree with every word of this, chick.

[Groin_pull]

The whole arena size argument is just dumb. The size of the BC is just fine. Look at the percent-of-capacity of NBA games vs. the NHL. There are a lot of NBA teams turning out sub-85% capacity. Nothing close to the NHL numbers (10 teams under 85% NBA vs. 5 NHL).

Now, the people of Milwaukee...excuse me, the people of surrounding counties like uber-conservative Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington counties are being ridiculously shortsighted if they don't vote for a new arena. These counties and people fail to realize that the value of their own property is affected by the anchor city around it...which is Milwaukee. Being a two-sport town is a big deal, and being a three is even bigger (I'm sorry, but Milwaukee gets a little bit of Packers credit).

A new arena keeps an NBA team here and lets Milwaukee be one of only 30 teams known globally for their hoops team. Better awareness of the city means more money, income, businesses, standard of living, and opportunities not afforded to non-sports team cities. The Bucks leave, it's not just a lost "losing basketball team". It's a hole in the wall of downtown and tons of lost jobs on 100+ days a year.

Milwaukee will find a way to fumble this...and the NBA couldn't be happier if that happens. I'm sure the league would much rather have a team back in Seattle. Other viable options are Vegas, Vancouver, Kansas City, San Jose, even Louisville. There will be no shortage of cities scrambling for the chance to get a team.

[source?]

No way I'd trade the Bucks for an NHL franchise.  That does absolutely nothing for me.  NHL is still an afterthought for most sports fans.

It's just a personal opinion. I can still watch high quality basketball in the city if the Bucks leave. It might even send a few more fans our way. It gets rid of the whole controversy over a new stadium, still provides 41 home dates a year to draw fans downtown and support local restaurants/bars, no overlap with the Brewers.

Once again, just my opinion, but I wouldn't mind the tradeoff (I'd rather the Bucks didn't leave, but if an NHL franchise replaced them it would lessen the blow).

[Benny B]

It's just a personal opinion. I can still watch high quality basketball in the city if the Bucks leave. It might even send a few more fans our way. It gets rid of the whole controversy over a new stadium, still provides 41 home dates a year to draw fans downtown and support local restaurants/bars, no overlap with the Brewers.

Once again, just my opinion, but I wouldn't mind the tradeoff (I'd rather the Bucks didn't leave, but if an NHL franchise replaced them it would lessen the blow).

Is the irony of an NHL team coming to Milwaukee as a result of the Bucks leaving town because they couldn't survive in the BC not lost on anyone?

[Spotcheck Billy]

Is the irony of an NHL team coming to Milwaukee as a result of the Bucks leaving town because they couldn't survive in the BC not lost on anyone?

no

[source?]

Is the irony of an NHL team coming to Milwaukee as a result of the Bucks leaving town because they couldn't survive in the BC not lost on anyone?

It is really a stadium on par with other NHL stadiums. However, it continues to fall behind the amenities offered by most NBA arenas (whether new or due to updates).

[shiloh26]

I'd argue that building a new arena out of fear is short sighted.

If they can get the right mix of private and public funding, and they can use a new arena in a 50 year city development vision, then great, build away.

If this is a "gun-to-the-head" scenario, then building a new arena without a long term urban development plan is short sighted and a giant waste.

$200 million in private money has already been pledged for the project.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Milwaukee business community would come up with another $50 million given that down payment by Herb and the new owners.  That's not a "gun to the head" scenario. 

Miami, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay and Phoenix (among others, I'm sure) all recently got worse deals than that in terms of percentage of the stadium project that is publicly financed.  There are plenty of ways to finance a stadium irresponsibly, and I want to see this played out for Milwaukee, but starting with 40% of the project financed privately makes things so much easier.

[Ari Gold]

this needs to be said as loudly and obnoxiously as possible:THERE IS NO WAY AN NHL TEAM WILL MOVE TO MILWAUKEE
No owner will willing move a team to a city, or create in an expansion team in a city that already abandoned a professional franchise, and Milwaukee would still need a new arena to accommodate the new sport. 
Plus the NHL's expansion theory didn't even hint at Milwaukee:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/half-of-the-nhls-rumored-expansion-cities-dont-make-sense/

Our research showed that, in addition to Quebec City and a second Toronto franchise, the Canadian cities of Kingston, Halifax and perhaps even Moncton, Sherbrooke or Sudbury could each reasonably hope to support a team. From the standpoint of fan avidity, all were more attractive markets than Seattle — not to mention Las Vegas, which was sandwiched between Milwaukee and Kansas City, Missouri, as the least hockey-mad of the potential expansion sites we examined. Each of those seven Canadian municipalities also contained more NHL fans than five current NHL cities: Phoenix; Columbus, Ohio; Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Miami and Nashville.

$200 million in private money has already been pledged for the project.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Milwaukee business community would come up with another $50 million given that down payment by Herb and the new owners.  That's not a "gun to the head" scenario. 

I believe the business community has already come up with $83m in minority ownership. that'll all go towards a new stadium, might be as high as $300m. Consider how much could come from naming rights and corporate sponsorships, and some contributions from Marquette. It was once remarked to me from some folks deeply involved in the new arena process that "Marquette could build its own on campus arena in a heartbeat if the bucks deal fell through". If that is the case, Marquette could equally come up with the cash to contribute to a new Bucks arena if the finances worked out for the university.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

$200 million in private money has already been pledged for the project.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Milwaukee business community would come up with another $50 million given that down payment by Herb and the new owners.  That's not a "gun to the head" scenario. 

Miami, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay and Phoenix (among others, I'm sure) all recently got worse deals than that in terms of percentage of the stadium project that is publicly financed.  There are plenty of ways to finance a stadium irresponsibly, and I want to see this played out for Milwaukee, but starting with 40% of the project financed privately makes things so much easier.

Let's say private investors put up 300mil, and they want the city cover the rest (200mil). It's a fair deal, right?

Unless the city has a large scale vision of how that arena (and that 200mil) are going to help urban development in the long run, it's still probably not the right decision. 

I know how a new arena will help the new owners. It's unclear (at this point), how a new arena helps the taxpayers.

[Ari Gold]

Let's say private investors put up 300mil, and they want the city cover the rest (200mil). It's a fair deal, right?

Unless the city has a large scale vision of how that arena (and that 200mil) are going to help urban development in the long run, it's still probably not the right decision. 

I know how a new arena will help the new owners. It's unclear (at this point), how a new arena helps the taxpayers.

if the plan to make the arena into a TIF district is put in place, the city won't have to "cover that 200m" nor would the cost be on the tax payers. Tax Incremental Fiancee districts accelerate economic development and help both private and public sides and it wont raise taxes or tap into general funds.

[NersEllenson]

Let's say private investors put up 300mil, and they want the city cover the rest (200mil). It's a fair deal, right?

Unless the city has a large scale vision of how that arena (and that 200mil) are going to help urban development in the long run, it's still probably not the right decision. 

I know how a new arena will help the new owners. It's unclear (at this point), how a new arena helps the taxpayers.

Can you please for once in your posting history make a definitive statement about what you suggest is the solution?  Let's hear your thoughts on how the city could spend $200M in a better way, that would bring better value long term?

[martyconlonontherun]

It's highly debatable on how much money would make this an economically good decision for the city once you include player's income tax and how much tourism is actually generated within the city, but for once I want tax payer money used on something positive and recreational. I know this is a dumb way to look at things, but a lot of resources paid by tax payers are not used are for police, emergency services, public schools, etc. There is no doubt these services are necessary for the community and should be in place, but a lot of higher taxpayers don't use these resources at a proportional rate. I just want to be selfish knowing some tax money will be used up for something I enjoy. I totally understand if other people don't think this is a worthwhile endeavor and if it ends up being voted down.

[martyconlonontherun]

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.

The BC is awesome for MU right now and they have a great agreement. That said, 5 years from now will MU still like the BC when they are the lone major tenant making updates to the arena and it no longer had lure of being considered a nba arena. The BC will become outdated and unprofitable very quickly without the bucks. I honestly think it will become a city money pit in that case and may be torn down.

[Skitch]

A few different thoughts about this.

1. It was mentioned earlier, but that article is completely wrong about a new stadium needing to be ready by 2017.  It needs to be started by then.  If it were to be open in 3 years they would need a location, design and funding yesterday.

2.  I seem to remember hearing a while back that there was no possibility of an NHL team in Milwaukee due to the fact that it is considered part of the Blackhawks home territory or something like that.

3.  As related to MU, I would have to think that a $50 million (or whatever amount) share of the funding would basically be like a loan with repayment in the form of lowered rent over their lease.

[jficke13]

Can you please for once in your posting history make a definitive statement about what you suggest is the solution?  Let's hear your thoughts on how the city could spend $200M in a better way, that would bring better value long term?

Let me preface this by saying I live in Milwaukee, have literally 0 interest in watching the Bucks, hate the idea of paying more taxes, but am more than happy to pay more taxes specifically to build a new NBA arena simply because I think it would be good for MU basketball.

That being said, I'll give one thing that could arguably be better to spend $200m on than an NBA arena: Nothing. Sometimes the money you don't spend is better than the money you do. I think that a great deal of the anti-arena sentiment is couched in the fact that its one of Deadspin's pet-hatreds. However, in all of the articles I've read over there just savaging arena construction, never have I heard the argument: "If only they spent that money on X." It's always: "They won't get their money's worth/rich people don't need public subsidies for their sports teams."

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Can you please for once in your posting history make a definitive statement about what you suggest is the solution?  Let's hear your thoughts on how the city could spend $200M in a better way, that would bring better value long term?

Radically overhaul the school system and create the best public schools in the world.

[wildbill sb]

Radically overhaul the school system and create the best public schools in the world.

Bingo!  +10

[GGGG]

Let me preface this by saying I live in Milwaukee, have literally 0 interest in watching the Bucks, hate the idea of paying more taxes, but am more than happy to pay more taxes specifically to build a new NBA arena simply because I think it would be good for MU basketball.

That being said, I'll give one thing that could arguably be better to spend $200m on than an NBA arena: Nothing. Sometimes the money you don't spend is better than the money you do. I think that a great deal of the anti-arena sentiment is couched in the fact that its one of Deadspin's pet-hatreds. However, in all of the articles I've read over there just savaging arena construction, never have I heard the argument: "If only they spent that money on X." It's always: "They won't get their money's worth/rich people don't need public subsidies for their sports teams."

Not only that, but you are spending $200 million (plus interest because it would be bonded) for 41 nights per year.  Outside of the Bucks, the BC works for every other one of its tenants.  MU, the Admirals, tours of various sorts, etc.

Furthermore I don't think it is terribly "progressive" to build an arena simply because the team might leave.

[dgies9156]

When will it end????????

April 21, 2040

Milwaukee -- In yet another bold move by the Milwaukee Bucks, the Pottowattamie Nation, the team's ownership, today decried the obsolete conditions of the Klements Arena and announced that the team needs a new arena to remain competitive.

"It;s not a question of if anymore," a spokesman for the Pottowattamies said in a press conference this morning. "We need the new arena if we are to generate the cash flow necessary for the team to prosper in today's environment."

The NBA backed the Tribe in a statement issued from its Nashville headquarters. "The Klements Arena was built in 2017 and is hopelessly inadequate for an NBA team. It's a basketball arena. As new facilities in Dallas, Kansas City, Salt Lake City and Nashville have shown, our fans are looking for a multi-dimensional entertainment experience, of which our basketball franchises are a major part. Milwaukee's facility just doesn't cut it."

Klements Arena, which acquired its name in a rights battle won by the global sausage empire started in Milwaukee, was completed in 2018 amid much controversy. The Bucks were negotiating with King County and the City of Seattle to move the franchise to the then-newly opened Gates Arena when a late night compromise by the Wisconsin legislature and the Milwaukee Common Council saved the team and built Klements Arena.

The Arena has been home to both the Bucks and Marquette University since. Since the Arena opened, Marquette has won five national titles and never failed to make the NCAA Tournament.

Current estimates are that the arena would cost $5 billion. Proposed site locations include the south side of Wisconsin Avenue between the Milwaukee River and N. 6th Street, a site in the former Industrial Valley between the Tribe's existing entertainment complex and its other major holding -- the Milwaukee Brewers -- and the former Pabst Farm in Oconomowoc, which has been fallow since a broken development in the early 2000s.

Rumors have indicated that if the Tribe is not successful in getting state financing for a new arena, the Bucks would move to either Jackson, MS, or Reno, NV. Both communities have proposed a new stadium that meets NBA requirements.