New Stadium Imminent?

[GGGG]

The bucks were the biggest reason for the bc. Yes the petits wanted a hockey team and that was part of the equation but they weren't building the BC only for the admirals and a possible nhl team.  I don't think the petits put up every penny for the BC either.

The Pettit's put up about half.

And I wonder if they knew that the building would be considered obsolete in only 25 years if they would have even bothered.

[humanlung]

The Pettit's put up about half.

And I wonder if they knew that the building would be considered obsolete in only 25 years if they would have even bothered.

Wrong.  The Pettit's put it all up.  It was a gift to the city.  Here are some references since I am sure you will argue this.

And are you kidding?  Would they even have bothered?  You have a lot to add to this board but statements like these sap your credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
http://stadiums.findthebest.com/q/1358/1381/How-much-did-BMO-Harris-Bradley-Center-located-in-Milwaukee-Wisconsin-cost-to-build
http://www.bmoharrisbradleycenter.com/arena-info/arena-highlights
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-27/sports/8503130715_1_mayor-maier-lloyd-and-jane-pettit-new-arena
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20031112&id=GMQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t44EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6731,684935

[GOO]

In agreement with your sentiment of being honest in our facts:
Parks: Public good
Arts: Public good/non-profit
Museums: Public good/non-profit

NBA Team/Arena: privately owned, for-profit company.

I'm just saying let's not equate two fundamentally different things.

akmarq, valid point.  But one has to consider that the Bucks, even if private are barely a for profit company.  Kohl made a lot on the sale, not operating it.  If they stay in Milwaukee, the new owners won't make much on a sale.  They also have a civic component for the city, more so than a typical company.  I doubt the investors expect to make much if any money from operations.  Breaking even seems like more of a goal or clearing a few million.  Not about a return on investment.  What private companies that are truly for-profit, expand, build or move without government financial help? Not many.

[Let's Go Warriors]

Wrong.  The Pettit's put it all up.  It was a gift to the city.  Here are some references since I am sure you will argue this.

And are you kidding?  Would they even have bothered?  You have a lot to add to this board but statements like these sap your credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
http://stadiums.findthebest.com/q/1358/1381/How-much-did-BMO-Harris-Bradley-Center-located-in-Milwaukee-Wisconsin-cost-to-build
http://www.bmoharrisbradleycenter.com/arena-info/arena-highlights
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-27/sports/8503130715_1_mayor-maier-lloyd-and-jane-pettit-new-arena
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20031112&id=GMQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t44EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6731,684935

And if I recall correctly.  The Pettit's got so irritated with the City of Milwaukee they almost pulled their money out a few times.

[GOO]

Wrong.  The Pettit's put it all up.  It was a gift to the city.  Here are some references since I am sure you will argue this.

And are you kidding?  Would they even have bothered?  You have a lot to add to this board but statements like these sap your credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Harris_Bradley_Center
http://stadiums.findthebest.com/q/1358/1381/How-much-did-BMO-Harris-Bradley-Center-located-in-Milwaukee-Wisconsin-cost-to-build
http://www.bmoharrisbradleycenter.com/arena-info/arena-highlights
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-27/sports/8503130715_1_mayor-maier-lloyd-and-jane-pettit-new-arena
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20031112&id=GMQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t44EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6731,684935

If they knew there would not be an NHL franchise and it would be no longer valued by the NBA, would they have done things differently?  I'd think so, but who knows.

[GGGG]

No you are correct.  I misread the wiki page you linked to.  

[humanlung]

And if I recall correctly.  The Pettit's got so irritated with the City of Milwaukee they almost pulled their money out a few times.

You do remember correctly. 

This is why I have no faith in local politicians.  How can you almost screw up a $90 million gift????

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

1) Obsolescence has sped up in the last 50 years.  Even more so in the last 20.  Still have your same phone from 5 years ago?

I guess you're right, but if that's the case, Milwaukee should let the Bucks walk. We could get a lot more bang for our tax dollar investing in an infrastructure that is going to last more than 25 years. Hell, turn Grant Park into a world class links golf course right on the lake and try to attract an annual golf tournament. At least that would last more than 25 years and you could amortize the cost over a longer period.

2) You are right.  They want more revenue so they can compete with all of the franchises in the NBA that have venues that generate revenue and profit that make it possible for the owners to invest in the franchise.  This is called competition.  If you can't compete, you go away.  See:  Circuit City, Linens and Things, American TV, etc...

In this specific scenario, the Bucks business model doesn't work without taxpayers subsidizing it.  I don't recall American TV getting a grant to upgrade all of their facilities so they could stay in business. They went out of business and that cost a lot of people a lot of jobs. Oh well. That's competition. Somebody else will fill the void.  

3) This is related to #2.  The Bucks are terrible now just like the Brewers were.  The Brewers got a new stadium and, lo and behold, attendance goes up as excitement around the park brings people out.  With extra $$$ flowing in, ownership is able to upgrade aspects of the organization that were lacking pre-Miller Park (like the scouting department and the minor league organizations -this comes from someone who was there, by the way).  These investments pay off in a few years and the Brewers no longer suck and, in fact, they are able to compete from time to time.  

It's hard for me to make this jump. Miller Park didn't scout or draft Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hardy, etc. That was done using smart front office people, a ton of very high draft picks, and a little bit of luck. Now, Lohse, Garza, Ramirez, etc. are probably attributable to Miller Park as it gave the organization some financial flexibility.

4) Who knows but if the Brewers can make the playoffs once in a while in a sport where there is no real salary cap then it is within the realm of possibility that the Bucks can compete at the highest level if they are smart and invest in the organization like the Brewers did (because of the $$$ from Miller Park) in a sport with a salary cap.

I'm just not so sure. The NBA is just a different game. I can't think of the last city that built a new arena and felt a bump in how their organization performed. I could certainly be wrong, I don't have any data on that. I think drafting Kevin Durrant and Russell Westbrook helped the Thunder more than their facility.

5) True.  But what is the cost when you REMOVE a franchise from a city?  Is that a neutral event?  I don't think it is.
Totally fair. The Bucks walking will cost the city $. Will it cost the city more than $300million? Do the Bucks generate more than $15-20 million per year in revenue for Milwaukee? Maybe they do if you count income taxes from the players and coaches. I honestly don't know.  

One more thing to your post...I agree that 25 years is a fairly short time period in the grand scheme of things.  We have to remember, though, that the BC was NOT built for the Bucks.  It was built because the Pettit's wanted to bring an NHL franchise to Milwaukee back in the 1980s.  Unfortunately, when the NHL expanded the expansion fee was so over the top that it was impossible to do (if I recall correctly).  This is why the sight lines and layout of the BC is so crappy for basketball.  It's also why the "upgrade" option isn't really do-able, trying to turn a hockey arena into a state of the art basketball facility simply cannot be done - the bone structure isn't right.  My GUESS is that an arena that is built with a "basketball first" mentality would have a useful life of longer than 25 years.    

Could be. I'm just not sure I want to be $300million+ on that.

[humanlung]

If they knew there would not be an NHL franchise and it would be no longer valued by the NBA, would they have done things differently?  I'd think so, but who knows.

That might be true but one of the articles references the Bucks possibly leaving as a reason why they stepped up.  I think it's in the Tribune article. 

What was old is new again...

[Let's Go Warriors]

What do we expect ticket prices to be like at the new arena compared to the BC?  If this is "for the City".  I think its a good question.  Because it seems to me the real reason to build the arena is for the NBA/Bucks to make more money.  Chances are with the new arena my family will be even less likely to go.  Assuming hikes in ticket prices and parking/concessions etc.

[warriorchick]

akmarq, valid point.  But one has to consider that the Bucks, even if private are barely a for profit company.  Kohl made a lot on the sale, not operating it.  If they stay in Milwaukee, the new owners won't make much on a sale.   

Maybe the answer could be that if the city puts up money to build the new arena, the city shares in the profits when the team is sold.  Of course, there would be a lot of details to be worked out....

[MUSF]

If Indy can do it, Milwaukee should be able to. Unfortunately the Wisconsin Center District turns everything they touch to sh*t.

Indianapolis has some significant advantages over Milwaukee. It's centrally located, doesn't have Chicago right next door, better weather, NFL franchise, Indy 500, larger metropolitan area, the list goes on.

There seems to be some misconceptions on this board about other cities, and how they compare to Milwaukee.

[Let's Go Warriors]

Indianapolis has some significant advantages over Milwaukee. It's centrally located, doesn't have Chicago right next door, better weather, NFL franchise, Indy 500, larger metropolitan area, the list goes on.

There seems to be some misconceptions on this board about other cities, and how they compare to Milwaukee.

I agree.  How much bigger of an economic center is Milwaukee these days compared to say Brookfield and Waukesha combined?

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is true. Going to sporting events, bars and restaurants comes from disposable income. If the money is not spent on Bucks games it will be spent on something else. There would still be some economic loss to the city, but not that much.

However, having the Bucks around makes the city a more livable place, similar to parks, zoos, museums and the arts. I never could understand people when they bitch about the city putting up a sculpture or planting trees and landscape, etc.  Those are things that make a city livable and attractive. Helping with economic development is important too, but it shouldn’t be either/or. If the money does not go to build a new arena it will not magically appear and go to help economic development and the plight of the poor. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.

I do not buy the argument that a professional sports team is for the sole purpose of profit of the owners. That is certainly in the equation, but a professional sports team also promotes community pride, and provides entertainment. Sports teams represent the city in most people’s eyes. You have to take the good with the bad and not cut off your nose to spite your face.

Using the argument that there is no interest in the team and the franchise sucks is incredibly short sighted. The city has supported the Bucks for 45 years. The last 15 to 20 have been up and down, (mostly down,) but this franchise has also been very successful both in terms of winning percentage and attendance. If the team wins, the city will support it whole heartedly, there is no question about that.  Back in the dark years of MU basketball, attendance and interest in the team was down. I am sure glad people didn’t say we should dump MU basketball because the team is not good for a stretch of time.  Not apples to apples comparison I understand, but the same logic.

Is Louisville less livable because they don't have a NBA team?  Seattle?  San Diego? Is Los Angeles twice as livable because there are two NBA teams?  Isn't all of this in the eye of the beholder and when you attach $$$$ to it, that may also play into people's thinking? 

[humanlung]

Guns, prior to the cash flow that came from the opening of Miller Park, the Brewers didn't have the money to do proper scouting or invest in the player development personnel that work in the minor leagues.  As an example, and if I remember correctly, at the end of the Selig ownership it was so tight that the Brewers subscribed to a scouting newsletter - that was the extent of the "scouting" budget.  That does not feed the bulldog, as evidenced but the product on the field.

You are right, Miller Park didn't draft anyone.  But it did provide the $$$ that allowed the Brewers to hire the people to draft and develop them.

[MUSF]

Let's be honest. Milwaukee is not going to draw many conventions, no matter what time of year.

Not all conventions are created equally. Milwaukee could do very well attracting small to mid-level conventions if they addressed many of the issues others have cited in this thread. That stated, they are never going to compete for major conventions for many of the reasons others have cited in this thread.

[humanlung]

Is Louisville less livable because they don't have a NBA team?  Seattle?  San Diego? Is Los Angeles twice as livable because there are two NBA teams?  Isn't all of this in the eye of the beholder and when you attach $$$$ to it, that may also play into people's thinking? 

Louisville is right on the river where the climate isn't winter 6 months of the year.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Guns, prior to the cash flow that came from the opening of Miller Park, the Brewers didn't have the money to do proper scouting or invest in the player development personnel that work in the minor leagues.  As an example, and if I remember correctly, at the end of the Selig ownership it was so tight that the Brewers subscribed to a scouting newsletter - that was the extent of the "scouting" budget.  That does not feed the bulldog, as evidenced but the product on the field.

You are right, Miller Park didn't draft anyone.  But it did provide the $$$ that allowed the Brewers to hire the people to draft and develop them.

I understand your theory, but Tampa Bay had no money, Oakland has no money, and the Twins did their best drafting and scouting when they had no money. Same for Cleveland who drafted most of their talent before Jacobs Field was built. Remember all of the talent the Expos had as they were going bankrupt?

Scouting and drafting can be aided by budget (I understand that logic), but I don't think it's a simple cause and effect.

Too many teams have done it too well without huge budgets.

Oh, also, teams that have extended runs of being bad (brewers, twins, tampa, Cleveland, etc.) get 8-10 years of really high draft picks help stock their minor league system with better players. It's a numbers game. Give me a top 5 pick in every round of the draft for 10 years, and I bet I'll have a pretty good minor league system. Certainly their are outliers (Pittsburgh & KC come to mind), but on the whole, being bad helps restock minor league talent... not new stadiums.

[MUSF]

Is Louisville less livable because they don't have a NBA team?  Seattle?  San Diego? Is Los Angeles twice as livable because there are two NBA teams?  Isn't all of this in the eye of the beholder and when you attach $$$$ to it, that may also play into people's thinking? 

I agree, but keep in mind that this debate is being waged on a basketball fan message board. I would assume most people here over value sports considerably because it is an important part of their own lives. The reality is that losing the Bucks would have almost zero impact on a large majority of the people living in Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin.

[humanlung]

I understand your theory, but Tampa Bay had no money, Oakland has no money, and the Twins did their best drafting and scouting when they had no money. Same for Cleveland who drafted most of their talent before Jacobs Field was built. Remember all of the talent the Expos had as they were going bankrupt?

Scouting and drafting can be aided by budget (I understand that logic), but I don't think it's a simple cause and effect.

Too many teams have done it too well without huge budgets.

Oh, also, teams that have extended runs of being bad (brewers, twins, tampa, Cleveland, etc.) get 8-10 years of really high draft picks help stock their minor league system with better players. It's a numbers game. Give me a top 5 pick in every round of the draft for 10 years, and I bet I'll have a pretty good minor league system. Certainly their are outliers (Pittsburgh & KC come to mind), but on the whole, being bad helps restock minor league talent... not new stadiums.

I think you are confusing payroll with budget.  I don't know about the teams you mentioned but I do know that the Brewers were so  cash poor that EVERYTHING got cut, not just the salaries at the major league level.  Without the money to scout the guy to draft with the #5 pick or the minor league coaches to teach him and prepare him to move up the ladder, it's a waste.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

This is true. Going to sporting events, bars and restaurants comes from disposable income. If the money is not spent on Bucks games it will be spent on something else. There would still be some economic loss to the city, but not that much.

However, having the Bucks around makes the city a more livable place, similar to parks, zoos, museums and the arts. I never could understand people when they bitch about the city putting up a sculpture or planting trees and landscape, etc.  Those are things that make a city livable and attractive. Helping with economic development is important too, but it shouldn’t be either/or. If the money does not go to build a new arena it will not magically appear and go to help economic development and the plight of the poor. It doesn’t work that way in the real world.

I do not buy the argument that a professional sports team is for the sole purpose of profit of the owners. That is certainly in the equation, but a professional sports team also promotes community pride, and provides entertainment. Sports teams represent the city in most people’s eyes. You have to take the good with the bad and not cut off your nose to spite your face.

Using the argument that there is no interest in the team and the franchise sucks is incredibly short sighted. The city has supported the Bucks for 45 years. The last 15 to 20 have been up and down, (mostly down,) but this franchise has also been very successful both in terms of winning percentage and attendance. If the team wins, the city will support it whole heartedly, there is no question about that.  Back in the dark years of MU basketball, attendance and interest in the team was down. I am sure glad people didn’t say we should dump MU basketball because the team is not good for a stretch of time.  Not apples to apples comparison I understand, but the same logic.

This is an interesting point. I'm not too tied into the Bucks being good vs being bad, or "deserving" a new arena.

I'd like to see if there are other examples of NBA franchises that have constructed new arenas and had it improve performance (which we know draws people) and draw enough people (both live and on TV) to make an positive economic and civic impact in the city/state.

I don't care that the Bucks are bad. I'm just not a fan. Doesn't matter to me.  

But, if the city pays for a new arena and they are bad, then the city isn't likely to see a return on investment. That's what makes me nervous.

If a new arena would turn the Bucks into the Spurs, then I'd sign up. Not because I'm a fan, but because I think a 20 year run of success would make a bigger economic and civic impact, and would probably be worth it.

[humanlung]

This is an interesting point. I'm not too tied into the Bucks being good vs being bad, or "deserving" a new arena.

I'd like to see if there are other examples of NBA franchises that have constructed new arenas and had it improve performance (which we know draws people) and draw enough people (both live and on TV) to make an positive economic and civic impact in the city/state.

I don't care that the Bucks are bad. I'm just not a fan. Doesn't matter to me.  

But, if the city pays for a new arena and they are bad, then the city isn't likely to see a return on investment. That's what makes me nervous.

If a new arena would turn the Bucks into the Spurs, then I'd sign up. Not because I'm a fan, but because I think a 20 year run of success would make a bigger economic and civic impact, and would probably be worth it.

Brooklyn Nets.  Huge turnaround with the move.

[hairy worthen]

This is an interesting point. I'm not too tied into the Bucks being good vs being bad, or "deserving" a new arena.

I'd like to see if there are other examples of NBA franchises that have constructed new arenas and had it improve performance (which we know draws people) and draw enough people (both live and on TV) to make an positive economic and civic impact in the city/state.

I don't care that the Bucks are bad. I'm just not a fan. Doesn't matter to me.  

But, if the city pays for a new arena and they are bad, then the city isn't likely to see a return on investment. That's what makes me nervous.

If a new arena would turn the Bucks into the Spurs, then I'd sign up. Not because I'm a fan, but because I think a 20 year run of success would make a bigger economic and civic impact, and would probably be worth it.

I am not saying a new arena would make the bucks better or worse on the court.  I am saying don't make any decision based on how the team is doing recently because team success can and do change.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think you are confusing payroll with budget.  I don't know about the teams you mentioned but I do know that the Brewers were so  cash poor that EVERYTHING got cut, not just the salaries at the major league level.  Without the money to scout the guy to draft with the #5 pick or the minor league coaches to teach him and prepare him to move up the ladder, it's a waste.

So do we really think that the Brewers were so much more poor than the Twins (almost contracted), Oakland, Tampa, Expos Moved to San Juan and then Washington), Cleveland (before jacobs field), that they were so much worse at scouting?

I'm not talking payroll. I'm talking organizational $.

I don't think the Brewers were bad at drafting because of County Stadium. I think they were bad at drafting because they were bad at drafting.

They magically got "better" at drafting when they had higher picks. Happens to a lot of teams.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I am not saying a new arena would make the bucks better or worse on the court.  I am saying don't make any decision based on how the team is doing recently because team success can and do change.

I agree completely.

But, the rub for me is that I don't know if a new arena is a predictor of future success, and without on-court success, I don't think the team has the civil and economic impact that it needs to in order to justify the cost.