Putting the parking structure on park east land makes a lot of sense. It appears to be north of Juneau between 5th and 6th on the rendering. Cars have direct access to/from the freeway without clogging up city streets. Then they can redevelop the 2 existing parking structures. And a practice facility right next door as well. Hopefully, the county gets out the way and let's this happen.
Ain't that some crap
got a better plan Mister negative
Their assertion that they could create an additional $500 million (3 million sq ft) of additional mixed use development in 10 to 12 years seems like pie in the sky thinking to me.
Meant the HD naming...
I'm calling it .. In 20 years? That development will only be slightly more valuable than Grand Avenue is today.
I'm calling it .. In 20 years? That development will only be slightly more valuable than Grand Avenue is today.
Meh
Isn't this just rearranging the deck chairs in downtown Milwaukee? Between downtown, westown and the third ward, there isn't a shortage of retail, entertainment or residential space. One could argue that there is a glut of all three. This isn't like Chicago.
Righteous bucks.
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
Yes.
If someone donated the money so it wouldn't cost the University anything, I would want one. But that's not going to happen because it isn't a priority for MU.
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
I would much rather see us fix this 'problem' by having a better product on the floor -- its probably cheaper and would make me incrementally happier.
I agree this helps. But not in a major 5 conference, and missing the NCAA tourney multiple years in a row doesn't bode well for 17,000 sell outs. Duke plays in front of 9,000 at Cameron Indoor. But I agree, would need a major donation for this to happen, as that is what happened with the Pavilion and Nova
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).That is because they were not any good. Go to a smaller stadium and we might as well write off MU basketball. We will be competing with Loyola of Chicago for the CBI title.
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
And we don't have any place to put it.
Even if someone offered to donate the money so that it wouldn't cost us anything (and to truly not cost us anything, that would include endowing a fund to take care of maintenance, security, etc.), I would hope the Office of Development would try to steer the donor towards a more worthy project.
Building a stadium that would be used 20 times a year when there will be a state-of-the-art facility within walking distance is a complete waste of money. If some rich alum wants something named after him, there are several Colleges that still have naming rights available, as well as a substantial list of other buildings the school needs more than an arena.
I agree this helps. But not in a major 5 conference, and missing the NCAA tourney multiple years in a row doesn't bode well for 17,000 sell outs. Duke plays in front of 9,000 at Cameron Indoor. But I agree, would need a major donation for this to happen, as that is what happened with the Pavilion and Nova
I love our stadium arrangement. I wouldn't trade it for any other schools. A major NBA arena, that serves beer, in a downtown entertainment area surrounded by bars/restaurants, walking distance from campus. I can't think of a single school in the country that is set up better.
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
Apparently, someone got to Google maps already
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).Those seats are sold. Whether it was the BC or the "pavilion" would not have made any difference as it was more about the season.
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
Since this plan seems to confirm that the Bradley Center will be demolished, where will the Admirals play? Has there been mention of the new arena accomodating hockey?
Can the Admirals still play in the arena? I'd prefer to keep hockey out of this place.
I think you have to look longer term. General population trends are for the boomer generation(with the most disposable income) to move back to the cities. So over the next 5-15 years, there could be significant population growth that would support the type of space available.
I like that kind of thinking, but won't Milwaukee attract these people anyways? Are the Bucks and a new arena really part of driving that movement?
I like that kind of thinking, but won't Milwaukee attract these people anyways? Are the Bucks and a new arena really part of driving that movement?
I would also contend that there has been a lack of willingness to change the current Bradley Center area over the last 5-10 years because everyone knew that a new stadium had to be built, and without knowing the location, why invest money in an area that may become obsolete.
Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"
That is not scoop approved
Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"
That is not scoop approved
Correct, the trend is to Milwaukee, but the question is where. Brewer's Hill is already developed, north Water St is getting developed. That means potentially the MLK corridor north of Manpower and south of Reservoir could be developed, creating a Boomer community. Based on what I see, no empirical evidence, I don't think there is really a boomer community destination yet in Milwaukee.
Third Ward is more of the 20-30 somethings, East side is college kids and hipsters, Lakefront is the quite wealthy. This new area could be the right niche for the middle-upper class boomers looking to relocate downtown. Lot of speculation on my part, but if we had a city planning organization worth a crap they could definitely make it work.
Cool. Chick and I finish up this paying for college bull crap and we're IN!
Forgive me if I'm just being a wet blanket...Franklyn Gimbel?
We have had a multipurpose arena in the same neighborhood for the past 20+ years.
The areas to the north (ace hardware, some warehouses), west (Pabst development), and even the bar across the street (Legends) have all been either underutilized or unutilized all together since the day the BC opened.
Why would putting a new arena in the same neighborhood suddenly make long-term, meaningful growth in these areas possible? If the answer is simply "NEW!", then they should scrap this plan immediately and send everybody packing.
Cool. Chick and I finish up this paying for college bull crap and we're IN!
Opening of bucks presser "how bout them badgers, wouldn't it be nice seeing them play in the final 4 in our new stadium when it's built?"
That is not scoop approved
And will never happen. No final four will be in a 17,000 capacity stadium, there all played in football stadiums. More butts in the seats equals more NCAA mulla.
No. Why base future attendance predictions on this one, admittedly down, season? Over the past decade Marquette has some of the best attendance in all of college sports.
Plus you can't drink beers at an on-campus facility.....Just sayin'.
Actually you can. Alcohol sales are actually based on the Conference and then it is up to the school. Both Xavier and Cincinnati sell beer at their on campus arenas.
And will never happen. No final four will be in a 17,000 capacity stadium, there all played in football stadiums. More butts in the seats equals more NCAA mulla.
I agree with this part.....I think there was a lot of "well it's going away and may or may not be replaced" thinking that was involved in investment decisions. One of the reasons I don't think anyone bit at the Park East corridor previously....expensive to develop and tied to a stadium area we have no idea if it will be viable in the next 5-10 years
I respectfully disagree.
If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:
#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.
or
#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all.
If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.
Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.
From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?
I respectfully disagree.
If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:
#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.
or
#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all.
If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.
Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.
From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?
I respectfully disagree.
If an arena is such an economic driver, then 1 of 2 things should have happened:
#1 The areas surrounding the BC should have immediately been purchase and developed in the early 90's when the BC was new... or even in the early 2000's when the Bucks were really popular.
or
#2 Even with the impending "new arena" talk the past 5 years, if an arena is such an economic juggernaut, the area surrounding it would still have had enough value for SOMETHING to be built. Right now there is an empty bar sitting immediately across the street, and an empty field sitting just north. Boy oh boy. An urban arena is really driving that economic growth. Tosa and Bay View have had more growth in the past 10 years, and they don't have an arena at all.
If we use Milwaukee as it's own case study, I just don't think arenas are the economic magic that people want to believe.
Large scale city planning and infrastructure investments are important, and that CAN include a municipal arena. I just need somebody in the planning committee to tell me why the BC didn't work as an economic driver, and why the new building will.
From a macro level, it's the same building. We're tearing down 1 multi use arena, and essentially building the same thing. Why are we expecting it to get far greater economic results. How is that possible?
I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement ;D
First, make no mistake, I'm not forming the hypothesis "build it and they will come enmass". However, there is a possibility, if all things are accounted for, that this could be the corner stone of a development.
There are multiple things that go into economic development success, I would put forth you need the following things to happen together to have a significant revitalization:
-Momentum (multiple projects in an area to sustain and boost development...sum is better than the parts by themselves)
-Demographic trends in your favor
-Civic planning and coordination
-Correct expenses for what you are trying to do (I argue Park East never developed because the mitigation costs associated with developing the land made development as part of the BC cost prohibitive)
-Luck
As you point out with Tosa and Bay View, they are experiencing growth without a stadium...I'd argue they have all of the above going for them in those instances. That doesn't mean a stadium couldn't be part of all of that.
In short, I don't think the stadium guarantees success ever, but in this particular instance I believe there is a convergence that gives it a good shot, as part of a grand plan, to be very successful.
In general, I agree. I just need somebody who is getting paid to do this stuff to detail out for me why this arena is going to be a far better economic driver than the BC has been.
To make an analogy: If I chose to billboards for a client that get mediocre results, I can't go back and recommend the same thing 5 years later and just say "Yes, but it's NEW!". I need to detail out what went wrong the first time, and why it's going to work this time.
There are no guarantees, but I need some transparency and legit rationale from the planners. Right now, I just have "It's NEW!!!". Great. Doesn't mean it will work... or that we couldn't see more benefits for city planning and growth by investing 500m elsewhere.
In general, I agree. I just need somebody who is getting paid to do this stuff to detail out for me why this arena is going to be a far better economic driver than the BC has been.
To make an analogy: If I chose to billboards for a client that get mediocre results, I can't go back and recommend the same thing 5 years later and just say "Yes, but it's NEW!". I need to detail out what went wrong the first time, and why it's going to work this time.
There are no guarantees, but I need some transparency and legit rationale from the planners. Right now, I just have "It's NEW!!!". Great. Doesn't mean it will work... or that we couldn't see more benefits for city planning and growth by investing 500m elsewhere.
I wasn't there when the BC was being built so I don't really know this but, when they built the BC did they have a bunch of real estate executives and developers putting forth a cohesive urban plan like this? That could be the difference between then and now.
So the difference between then and now is:
When the BC was built they said: "Look it's NEW!"
When the Harley Davidson Arena is getting built they're saying: "Look it's new and we have this comprehensive vision of other projects we're supporting to try to get this area redeveloped."
Doesn't meant it will work though.
I'd love to see that as well....but I'm not holding my breath simply because I have no faith in the city to be that organized. Additionally, I don't that the GP is that intelligent to understand the need for this information and I don't think anyone will provide it for that reason even if they thought about it.
I'm doing my own internal analysis and based on what I've seen, know, and a little light assumption I've come to the conclusion this has a good shot to be successful. But I 100% admit that is a questionable at best way to look at it, but I don't see any alternatives.
I wasn't there when the BC was being built so I don't really know this but, when they built the BC did they have a bunch of real estate executives and developers putting forth a cohesive urban plan like this? That could be the difference between then and now.
So the difference between then and now is:
When the BC was built they said: "Look it's NEW!"
When the Harley Davidson Arena is getting built they're saying: "Look it's new and we have this comprehensive vision of other projects we're supporting to try to get this area redeveloped."
Doesn't meant it will work though.
I'm calling it .. In 20 years? That development will only be slightly more valuable than Grand Avenue is today.
The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.
The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.
For all the great things about the BC, it was very poorly positioned to spur surrounding economic development. It's surrounded by MATC to the west, the Arena/Theatre to the south, and the JS building to the SE. The land to the north was blocked by the Park East freeway until 2003, so that wasn't available for development either during the late 90's or early 2000's period that was mentioned. The park east has been vacant now for the past 10 years, but that's also about the same amount of time the new arena debate has been going on, so nobody was going invest that much money until the arena issue was sorted out. Plus, there are significant obstacles to developing that land, from environmental remediation issues to minority-owned contractor requirements, that also made it difficult for investment. Throw in the fact it's next to a housing project, borders a rough neighborhood, and is far from the downtown core, and I can understand why no one has been pouring a lot of money into it.
I would argue that the BC did spur development in the area to the east. Most of the bars/restaurants on 3rd are new within the past 10 years. From what I can recall, only Maders and Buck Bradleys were there pre-BC. I'd also say the growth of Water St. bars was also in large part due to the BC. Throw in the Aloft and Moderne and that's a decent amount of development when the arena debate has been active and the future of the Bucks has been in doubt.
So far, Milwaukee has blown it's opportunity to use both the Bradley Center and Miller Park to spur additional development. I think a different location for the new arena would serve this purpose better, but I guess we'll see how it turns out eventually. I'm just saying the BC shouldn't necessarily be used as an example of why surrounding development wouldn't happen, because they screwed it up from the beginning with the location.
The state/city is kicking in approximately $250 million total to get $1 billion in development, some of which will come on a currently vacant lot. If even half of it pans out then they got a steal.
Let's not fool ourselves .. the "$1b development" is just a theory. Phase 1 is building the arena. Years later, *maybe* more development occurs, that adds up to $500m more. Each of those new developments is going to need to make sense -- and one can bet, each development will come with a hand-out to the state/city for more funds.
I just think that we haven't, to this point, still received any solid justification for the price tag of the development. Does it need to be $500 million? Can we get away with less? Have we looked at comparable arenas or are we going for $500 million just because it is currently on the higher end for new NBA arenas (see Golden State)? Do we even really need to build anew in the first place? Etc, etc.
I just think that we haven't, to this point, still received any solid justification for the price tag of the development. Does it need to be $500 million? Can we get away with less? Have we looked at comparable arenas or are we going for $500 million just because it is currently on the higher end for new NBA arenas (see Golden State)? Do we even really need to build anew in the first place? Etc, etc.
This is the kind of thinking that will see Milwaukee left behind the market. Can we do the bare minimum? Sure. But if that's the attitude the city wants to adopt then we will lose the competition for young professionals. It is a competitive market place.
A new arena, or upgrades/renovations to the BC in excess of $100 million, will be necessary in the next 10-20 years. We can do it with the Bucks now or we can do it on our own then.
I wouldn't argue that just because it is "new" it is better, but the foresight of looking beyond the arena is much better. When people say 20 years for the BC they actually mean 30 years (broke ground in 86, opened in 88). That is a long time and a much different urban planning environment. The Mid 80s were in the hey day of suburb mania and people leaving the city. As has been pointed out, we are now at a time of urban growth. That alone doesn't make this all work, but I don't know that just because the 1986 BC didn't spur development, doesn't mean a 2018 HD arena can't help in changing the city.
One place that they can see a lot of growth is in the concert industry. Many top artists skip the bradley center partly because it lacks amenities. Here is a good article http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/musicandnightlife/2013-was-great-for-the-live-music-business-except-the-bradley-center-b99273045z1-260674781.html. According to the article a new arena could increase the number of headliners from 3 to 15 thats an extra 200,000 people visiting the bradley and spending money.
Why has the bar IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET out of business for years?
This is the kind of thinking that will see Milwaukee left behind the market. Can we do the bare minimum? Sure. But if that's the attitude the city wants to adopt then we will lose the competition for young professionals. It is a competitive market place.
A new arena, or upgrades/renovations to the BC in excess of $100 million, will be necessary in the next 10-20 years. We can do it with the Bucks now or we can do it on our own then.
Because it sucked. And there a half-dozen much cooler places surrounding it. It was always a generic bar in a generic building. There was literally no reason to go there.
Right, but if NBA teams and a Milwaukee urban arena is are such economic driver, then the place across the street should be printing money.
They tried several different types of bars and restaurants in that place, and they could never make it work.
To put it another way: What so special about the Cubby Bear? Not much... but that place makes money. A LOT OF MONEY.
I think "era" is a legitimate point. It's simply not 1988 anymore, and that makes a difference.
But, I'll ask: If real estate near the arena is so valuable because it's 2015, not 1988, why hasn't it already been gobbled up by businesses and/or speculators? Why has the bar IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET out of business for years?
AND, if we believe that Milwaukee is experiencing some urban renewal already, do we need to spend another $300M to get more development, or can we just wait 5 more years and let the private market figure it out?
Right, but I bet if you give me $350M dollars, I can attract and retain more young professionals than an NBA franchise can.
Ok. Put together a business plan and send it to the state. The fact is we care about amenities. We care about public transit, about bike lanes, about having things to do. Look at the cities that are getting more of us. You will see a pattern of investment.
You are not looking at what Milwaukee loses if they don't build it. You can't just look at what is added, you have to factor in what is lost by doing nothing. Wait 5 years and the Bucks are gone. We then have to pay for an arena/development/repairs/etc ourselves. Please read the posts, I don't want to repeat myself 20 more times.
Long story short, the arena is being built. The state is contributing. Foregone conclusion. No point in acting like it is still being debated.
There are plenty of bars within a block of the BC that make money. But not that one. Why would I go to a bar that looks like the generic cocktail lounge at a sad Ramada when I could go someplace cool like Turner Hall or Buck Bradley's?
Milwaukee needs a large arena. We can build it with the bucks now or on our own later. Those are the stakes. Your cost/benefit analysis is flawed because it focuses 100% on the benefits with no consideration of what you lose. It is substantial. That's the last bullet in my gun. If you aren't convinced then we are probably too far apart.
Think bigger.
What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?
EDIT:
What I mean is, a lot of people are trying to sell conventional solutions, that includes politicians, city planners, and business owners.
Think outside of that. What are we actually trying to accomplish? How does this money support that goal? Is there a better way to do it?
Think bigger.
What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?
There will always be a semi large arena in Milwaukee. We are trying to replace an aging building that is costing the state money. We have a 250 million dollar potential private investment and they need to borrow 220 million in order to complete the project. The loan will be paid back by future taxes. If we fail to build an arena then we lose the 250 million dollar investment, have to pay 100 million on upkeep to an aging arena, and we don't have a pro basketball team.
So is your plan to just demolish the bradley center instead of paying the 100 million?
Truthfully, I don't have a plan.
I'm just saying, a lot of people are going to try to convince the public that this is the only solution and we should all just nod along.
Let's engage our critical thinking skills. This is a LOT of money. That's why I'm asking tough questions. I'm not against an arena plan, I just want to make sure that the plan is actually good for Milwaukee in the long run.
EXAMPLE: At some point, somebody thought building Grand Ave (in it's current configuration) was a good idea. It wasn't a good long term plan. They didn't understand the marketplace, the demand, and the potential changes in the retail space.
Think bigger.You are thinking too narrow. You are seeing $350 million on a new arena and thinking only in terms future economic gains. Can you quantify what it would mean to Milwaukee in terms if economic impact if we didn't have the bucks? What about intangible loss. Why do cities build and maintain parks, plant trees, make the city beautiful, etc. Using your logic we shouldn't do any of those things because they give us no bang for the buck in terms of economic development. I would argue having the bucks and a new facility are things that make Milwaukee more liveable and in the long run will attract people to Milwaukee.
What happens if Milwaukee simply goes without a large arena?
EDIT:
What I mean is, a lot of people are trying to sell conventional solutions, that includes politicians, city planners, and business owners.
Think outside of that. What are we actually trying to accomplish? How does this money support that goal? Is there a better way to do it?
You are thinking too narrow. You are seeing $350 million on a new arena and thinking only in terms future economic gains. Can you quantify what it would mean to Milwaukee in terms if economic impact if we didn't have the bucks? What about intangible loss. Why do cities build and maintain parks, plant trees, make the city beautiful, etc. Using your logic we shouldn't do any of those things because they give us no bang for the buck in terms of economic development. I would argue having the bucks and a new facility are things that make Milwaukee more liveable and in the long run will attract people to Milwaukee.
Losing the bucks would hurt the economy and that is what a lot of people are failing to realize.
Now we're getting someplace.
I'd just like to see somebody try to put some context for how we can evaluate that value. There is certainly value there, but what's it worth?
Now we're getting someplace.Someone smarter than me could probably figure out economic impact of the bucks leaving. Lost taxes, hotels, parking revenue, money being spent on downtown businesses, all of that. I don't think you can put a value on the intangible loss.
I'd just like to see somebody try to put some context for how we can evaluate that value. There is certainly value there, but what's it worth?
Someone smarter than me could probably figure out economic impact of the bucks leaving. Lost taxes, hotels, parking revenue, money being spent on downtown businesses, all of that. I don't think you can put a value on the intangible loss.
Milwaukee has lost sports teams before and people were crushed, affects the city psychologically. I think the money people spend on bucks related things is disposable income so if they are not spending it on the bucks they will spend it elsewhere but maybe not downtown. I think the intangible loss would be huge. Should we get rid of the Pac, museum and zoo as well? Those are all expensive things that make cities livable and I would say professional sports teams fall into that category.
Ya, I get it. I don't mean to sound so anti-everything.
The Bucks and an arena certainly have value. I'm just not sure it's as magical as some people would have us believe.
As far as zoo, museum, etc., it's a little different for me. Those aren't for-profit businesses that are requiring public funding, or else they are going to leave.
How much will it hurt? I'm not entirely sure it's as much as some people would have us believe.
Just for reference, the Bucks' current payroll is just under $58 million. At 10% tax rate, over the next 20 years, that's $116 million in lost state revenue. From player salaries alone. Not coaches, not staff, not owners, not property taxes (millionaires have to live somewhere), nothing else taken into account. If their payroll stays the same for the next 20 years.
The salary cap is increasing to almost 90 million in 2016. In 2012 the jock tax was 10.7 million, so increasing the salary cap by 32 million would raise that to at least 13 million.
Amen, Chick.
I can only imagine what $400 million or more could do if a financially strong donor invested in a fund to buy down tuition. Or perhaps develop needed programs to elevate Marquette's presence in the world. A basketball arena is a ridiculous expense when we have a world class facility less than a mile away. If we were in Ames, Iowa; Carbondale, IL or Columbia, MO, maybe. But we're not.
Well we've had 10 years to think about it now we have a deadline. I think a new arena is good for Milwaukee whether it leads to the extra economic development or not. There really isn't any other option for where to put the new arena. Losing the bucks would hurt the economy and that is what a lot of people are failing to realize.
Someone smarter than me could probably figure out economic impact of the bucks leaving. Lost taxes, hotels, parking revenue, money being spent on downtown businesses, all of that. I don't think you can put a value on the intangible loss.
Milwaukee has lost sports teams before and people were crushed, affects the city psychologically. I think the money people spend on bucks related things is disposable income so if they are not spending it on the bucks they will spend it elsewhere but maybe not downtown. I think the intangible loss would be huge. Should we get rid of the Pac, museum and zoo as well? Those are all expensive things that make cities livable and I would say professional sports teams fall into that category.
There have been papers done on this stuff by WMG, and others. Thing is, the impacts are so widly different it is hard to take them seriously. LA loses the Ram and Raider, Seattle loses the Sonics, Louisvill doesn't add a NBA team...neither does KC....so on and so forth. The impacts to justify adding a team or the $$ lost swing wildly to very little or nothing, to the GDP of a medium size country.
GDP is not the argument here. Milwaukee will need a new arena in the next 20 years. We can build it in 20 years, after the Bucks leave, on our own, or we can build it with the Bucks. This doesn't feel like it should be that big of an argument.
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.
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 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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ;D
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.
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.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing...
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.
Totally tongue in cheek, but this is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing. Long term, it will cost $50M for the state to keep the Bucks and get a new downtown Milwaukee entertainment complex. That's pretty cheap.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone will find a better way to spend $50M that will create as many jobs in terms of construction and long-term in terms of employment, attract at least 13 young millionaires and bonus tax money equivalent to what will be gained annually on the jock tax, and give our largest city such a potentially attractive, growth oriented area.
Will it all come up seashells and balloons? Probably not. But there really are only two options here:
1) Keep the Bradley Center: The Bucks will leave, the state will be on the hook for necessary repairs, and the surrounding area will at best stagnate while the state saves $50M.
2) Contribute to the Miller Beer Garden: The Bucks will stay, Milwaukee will have a chance at an attractive, promising downtown area, jock tax continues to come in, and over the long term the public funding amounts to $50M.
That's it. There is no option 3, there is no option 4, there are no other viable choices on the table. Either stick with the crappy, decaying downtown area that has withered for decades and dies north of the BC or attempt to rebuild the area while keeping a pro franchise and the incumbent tax revenue and hopefully attracting businesses and residents to the downtown area.
Totally tongue in cheek, but this is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing. Long term, it will cost $50M for the state to keep the Bucks and get a new downtown Milwaukee entertainment complex. That's pretty cheap.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone will find a better way to spend $50M that will create as many jobs in terms of construction and long-term in terms of employment, attract at least 13 young millionaires and bonus tax money equivalent to what will be gained annually on the jock tax, and give our largest city such a potentially attractive, growth oriented area.
Will it all come up seashells and balloons? Probably not. But there really are only two options here:
1) Keep the Bradley Center: The Bucks will leave, the state will be on the hook for necessary repairs, and the surrounding area will at best stagnate while the state saves $50M.
2) Contribute to the Miller Beer Garden: The Bucks will stay, Milwaukee will have a chance at an attractive, promising downtown area, jock tax continues to come in, and over the long term the public funding amounts to $50M.
That's it. There is no option 3, there is no option 4, there are no other viable choices on the table. Either stick with the crappy, decaying downtown area that has withered for decades and dies north of the BC or attempt to rebuild the area while keeping a pro franchise and the incumbent tax revenue and hopefully attracting businesses and residents to the downtown area.
Yep. This is where I am. And while I don't think #2 will live up to the hype, IMO its a better alternative than #1.
In my previous house, my wife and I spent a lot of money to upgrade our kitchen. It was real nice. My wife kept saying "we will get this back when we sell it." I kept insisting this wasn't the case saying "even if we get 50-75% back, I am all for it because we get to have a much nicer kitchen."
We probably got about 80% of it back. The 20% was a small price to pay. That is pretty much how I feel about this.
You can make this claim about anything and everything. It's all about choices. How vital is it to have a new stadium vs FILL IN BLANK. The pie isn't endless in money. That's what this is about.
I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying the idea that stadiums pay for themselves and infuse all this extra money, isn't something that is conclusive and many experts say flat out doesn't happen at all.
Also, I do find it sad that these buildings become throw away items in such a short amount of time. Wasteful....expensive and wasteful.
Yep. This is where I am. And while I don't think #2 will live up to the hype, IMO its a better alternative than #1.
In my previous house, my wife and I spent a lot of money to upgrade our kitchen. It was real nice. My wife kept saying "we will get this back when we sell it." I kept insisting this wasn't the case saying "even if we get 50-75% back, I am all for it because we get to have a much nicer kitchen."
We probably got about 80% of it back. The 20% was a small price to pay. That is pretty much how I feel about this.
Then why the hell aren't we selling beer in The Al? They want attendance for women's games to improve; there you go.
The new Golden State Warriors arena that their owner talked about yesterday....amazingly beatiful.
100% privately financed. Taking on all the risk. That is also what this is about in my opinion. Heisenberg has it correct.
http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf
You are intentionally ignoring the entirety of the thread up to this point. Including pages you posted on. 1.2 million people come to the BC every year. 631,000 come for the Bucks. That's a big deal. We have no other venue that attracts that many people, or can accommodate that many. It is no one's fault that the BC is breaking down. It doesn't mean we are treating it as a throw away item, it is a fact that it is structurally unsound and needs updates. If you have a time machine to go back to 1986 we can fi those problems right now. Otherwise...
This is awesome. I agree that this should be the model. But the Bucks owners aren't going to do this. They have options that will be personally cheaper and less risky than financing it all themselves. Striving for the ideal is awesome, but that isn't the world we are playing in.
The Bradley Center was outdated at the tender age of about 20 years. It was mentioned in 1 of the JS articles that the proposed surrounding development of the new arena will take 10-12 years to be reality. At that point are we at the half-life of the new arena already and with no open spaces in the area to build the new arena the Bucks will need in 2037?
Back in the 80's the Bucks let MKE know that sports complexes had evolved and luxury boxes were a revenue necessity thus the BC was built. Now we have learned that arena design philosophy has again evolved and the BC is uncompetitive financially. You know future arena evolution will make the new arena untenable at some point but where will they be able to build the Bucks 4th arena?
I'm not ignoring it, I find the comment that it is structurally unsound and "breaking down" to be hyperbolic.
That's your opinion. The current operators/city have said as much. You should PM me with the details of the study you did on the BC. I'd be interested in your results. Conversely, if you haven't done a detailed study of the arena I think I'll go with the opinion of those more involved. If you are looking at my house to buy it, and I tell you there are leaky pipes, are you really in a position to argue with me?
As an aside, are you now admitting, in light of the numbers, that Milwaukee does need a larger venue than the 10,000 seat Panther arena? Because that's what it feels like you're saying here.
Please share with all of us that the BC is breaking down and structurally unsound. I suspect the general public should know this for safety concerns. You would do everyone a great service by pointing out those details. I'm sure claiming that it is, or "could be down the road" doesn't impact or inject fear into the equation to build a new stadium, even if it isn't true /sarc.
If I'm looking to buy your house, I have an inspector to come in before I buy it to find out what is truly wrong with it, I don't take your word for anything as the seller.
We have a 19,000 seat arena that works. Again, I'm not saying don't do it, but stop with the idea that this is some major economic boon for the city....there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs with everything.
Cursory google search that could have easily been performed by you reveals:
http://www.biztimes.com/article/20131125/MAGAZINE03/311219982/0/magazine02
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41937182.html
I've shown you mine. Your turn.
And did anyone seriously miss the fact that there have been games delayed due to the roof leaking?
We have a 19,000 seat arena that works. Again, I'm not saying don't do it, but stop with the idea that this is some major economic boon for the city....there are tradeoffs and opportunity costs with everything.
Never been my position. My position is that it is better to build with the Bucks than without. My position has been consistent and based on the facts available. Yours is based on opinion and vague, possibly analogous studies from completely different cities with entirely different situations and goals.
MLS season runs concurrently with MLB season. I doubt we have the population base to support two summer/fall pro teams.
Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound. Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements. That's how this works.
Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today. They are wants, not needs. They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.
I should reach out to Costello. Been a long time since I spoke to him. Would be good to catch up.
Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound. Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements. That's how this works.
Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today. They are wants, not needs. They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.
I should reach out to Costello. Been a long time since I spoke to him. Would be good to catch up.
If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, the combination of revenue losses and needed repair and maintenance would cost the BMO Harris Bradley Center $100 million over 10 years, Marotta said.
New HVAC required. New elevators required. New parking structure (actual integrity issues brought up in article). New plumbing required. New roof required (yes, a roof is a structural concern). Energy inefficient lighting required (costs more over time than replacing). New security system required. But yes, just keep sticking you fingers in your ears and telling me you can't hear me.
Also, I have no interest in who you know or how long it's been since you spoke to them. That's a large part of why people get annoyed with you.
My position is the people of Milwakee, sports fans in particular, believe their city will implode if the Bucks leave that they make decisions out of emotion and not their brains. That is their choice, but teams have left cities throughout history and those cities somehow managed on.
It's all about choices. The good news is that the rest of Milwaukee is humming along so well that the excess money that they are just sitting on and have nothing else to do with can be used for this purpose.....
Your articles are about maintenance and upgrades, not the idea that the building is breaking down or structurally unsound. Those upgrades and maintence are also estimates over a long period of time and not all of them will be implemented, they are estimated improvements. That's how this works.
Put another way, if the $25M to $40M could not be secured for the BC to make those improvements, th BC still stands, still has events, still carries on like it does today. They are wants, not needs. They might be very important wants, but you're are getting carried away with some of your hyperbolic statements.
And others have said that is not true. RIP Marc
You can change most of your required to desired and you would be accurate.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.
So stupid. Tired of the all or nothing demagogues on this issue. It just makes me less and less interested in supporting this.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.
Young professionals are not going to Bucks games. No one is going to Bucks games, relatively speaking. And no one is doing anything after Bucks games after, again, relatively speaking, as evidenced by the toilet environment around the current Bradley Center.
New HVAC required. New elevators required. New parking structure (actual integrity issues brought up in article). New plumbing required. New roof required (yes, a roof is a structural concern). Energy inefficient lighting required (costs more over time than replacing). New security system required. But yes, just keep sticking you fingers in your ears and telling me you can't hear me.
Also, I have no interest in who you know or how long it's been since you spoke to them. That's a large part of why people get annoyed with you.
Is there any evidence that "young professionals" go to Bucks games? Can someone in favor of putting millions of taxpayer dollars in the hands of billionaires please try to back up their arguments?
Young professionals are not going to Bucks games. No one is going to Bucks games, relatively speaking. And no one is doing anything after Bucks games after, again, relatively speaking, as evidenced by the toilet environment around the current Bradley Center.
So in order to fix these issues we need a new building. Imagine if every time you needed home repairs, you bought a new home. :D
Your assuming that a new building is going to attract new people. Study after study demonstrates that this is not the given that you think it is.
Alright, here's a thought. Let's do nothing. Why try to put our best foot forward to attract a young population base when we can be a third tier toilet of a city and spend nothing? Hey, while we're at it, how about Marquette stops investing in itself. Give up these silly dreams of a new research complex. I'm 100% sure there are more profitable uses for the newly acquired land. I mean, will the new research facility really increase the GDP of the city? Or attract development to the area? You know what they say, if you aren't growing, then you're probably doing the right thing.
So in order to fix these issues we need a new building. Imagine if every time you needed home repairs, you bought a new home. :D
Exactly. Not to mention that someday the new arena will also need substantial repairs that someone will need to pay for. All buildings need to be maintained.
If the Bucks leave Milwaukee, the combination of revenue losses and needed repair and maintenance would cost the BMO Harris Bradley Center $100 million over 10 years, Marotta said.
Yep.
I like the new design and the ideas... but we'll likely be doing a major remodel within 20 years, and the tax payers will be expected to pick up the tab.
FEAR THE DEER?: Some economists believe Milwaukee will not take much of a hit if the NBA moves the Bucks franchise to a different state.
The NBA has the right to buy back the Bucks from Edens and Lasry and possibly move the franchise if construction is not underway by November 2017, according to ESPN reports .
“(The NBA) does have a monopoly on their own product, so as a result, they can kind of pit cities and towns and states against one another and they threaten to leave if they don’t get their pound of flesh,” Slivinski told Wisconsin Reporter.
But Slivinski is confident Milwaukee wouldn’t take much of a hit if the Bucks relocate to another state.
“It’s almost immaterial whether the team is there or not,” Slivinski said. “It’s not going to generate any new economic activity because the team is there.”
So in order to fix these issues we need a new building. Imagine if every time you needed home repairs, you bought a new home. :D
That doesn't mean I think Milwaukee is a toilet that should rot from the inside out. It means I'm skeptical that the right decisions will be made, because the decisions they made in 1988 didn't work out. The decisions made for Grand Ave didn't work out. The decision to build the Park East freeway didn't work out. The list goes on and on.
It's okay to spend tax dollars... let's just make sure they are spent transparently and correctly.
Whats the point? If we don't have a new arena, the Bucks are leaving and the state is on the hook for keeping the BC viable and they lose the revenue stream. This is a known.
Do we want to risk the known happening on the chance that the credits and debits work out to slightly negative if we build a stadium? I'm probably restating Brew's point but far less eloquently....we know what we've got now and that it won't work long term, and we know that if we spend a little now we've got a good shot at least neutral in net, potentially home run if we do it right.
I'd agree with this, and feel there are reasons the previous endeavors didn't work as hoped.
First, I don't think there was a cohesive, united strategy on what downtown would be. The city's refusal to improve the convention center was a huge blow, moreso than many people might realize. Tens of thousands of visitors per year were lost because we refused to put on the desired upgrades to the convention center that large-scale conventions required to keep or attract their business.
Grand Avenue simply became a casualty of the suburbs. When it opened, it was awesome, but within a decade or so, Brookfield Square and Southridge caught up. Once those shoppers realized they didn't have to go downtown to get the same food court and stores, Grand Avenue saw business go away and simply didn't have the wherewithal to counter the suburban malls.
The BC was built at the worst possible time, and was myopic. They didn't leave it open for development, and the bars, shops, and restaurants that are necessary to generate revenue on non-event days don't exist and can't really be added.
Park East...well, that failed for numerous reasons, but mostly because of a lack of planning. The planned Harley Museum went to 6th and Canal, the MLS stadium never came to fruition, and it was allowed to stagnate.
That's why I like this new proposal. Because they aren't proposing an arena. They are proposing an environment. They are looking 10 years down the road and trying to find ways to make the area surrounding the arena vibrant and relevant. The beer garden, the viewing area, the parking structure near the freeway (so as not to clog downtown traffic), the businesses, the practice facility, all of this is designed with the idea of integrating new business and growth.
Milwaukee's past projects all seemed to be "we'll do this, and hopefully this will happen." The new arena seems to have a plan of "we'll do this, enhance it with this and this, and have room and a structured plan for this to happen." It isn't just an arena, it's a rebuild of downtown.
And frequently Chicos has talked about desires and needs. Well, the lack of putting desired improvements into the convention center led to large-scale conventions leaving or avoiding Milwaukee because they saw those things as needs. How long until large scale concerts decide the upgrades we desire for the BC are needs for them to book a date there? I mean, can't they just go to Minneapolis and Chicago and skip Milwaukee? Can't WWE and other events do the same?
They may be desires, but if you want to maintain current business (like the Bucks) and attract new business (like concerts and events) then you have to understand these aren't desires, they really are needs. Because they will ALL happily take their ball and go play elsewhere. Milwaukee needs them a lot more than they need Milwaukee. Just ask Gen-Con.
You're right, and I sound like a crabby old taxpayer.
Sometimes I just fundamentally struggle to see how we've gotten here.
Cities and taxpayers are now expected to provide free facilities for for-profit businesses, and we're all supposed to be excited about it because the picture looks cool. AND we're supposed to be excited when they come back in 10 years and want more upgrades.
<yells at kids to get off his lawn>
Don't forget that this isn't free. Yes, the state is likely to chip in. But it will probably chip in about 30% of the total cost. Far from free. And they'll see plenty back in income tax dollars that will go elsewhere. Will it balance out? Who knows. The state will probably take a hit. But what else will we do with the money that will have the potential to do so much.
I have little faith in the city to develop a reconstruction plan for downtown and make it work. As you've pointed out, Milwaukee has failed time and time again in that regard. I have much more faith in this plan because we aren't just looking at sketches of a new building, we're looking at sketches of the Park East Corridor finally realized with multiple pieces (arena, beer garden, viewing area, practice facility) that will definitely be built to entice other businesses to grow around.
Maybe it's the optimist in me, but that's more encouraging than any other plan I've seen come out of Milwaukee in ages.
My perspective really boils down to this:
The government spends so much of my tax money of stuff I never use that it is refreshing that some of it will be used to build an arena I will use for every Warrior home game.
MU basketball will benefit from building the HDArena, so let's do it and screw the costs.
I WANT to agree with you... I just haven't seen enough evidence to convince me (yet).
As far as the previous projects, I think you're correct... but at the time, I'm sure people were excited about them when they were in the planning phases: "This is totally going to work!".
There are no guarantees for city planning, so I'm not expecting that... but I'm skeptical that this going to be as successful as they say. I'm sure it will be beautiful. I'm sure everybody will love the ribbon cutting ceremony. I'm sure it will be a blast if the Bucks go deep in the playoffs. But, I want it to work out on paper. That's where I want to see the value.
You're right, and I sound like a crabby old taxpayer.
Sometimes I just fundamentally struggle to see how we've gotten here.
Cities and taxpayers are now expected to provide free facilities for for-profit businesses, and we're all supposed to be excited about it because the picture looks cool. AND we're supposed to be excited when they come back in 10 years and want more upgrades.
<yells at kids to get off his lawn>
Cities and taxpayers are now expected to provide free facilities for for-profit businesses, and we're all supposed to be excited about it because the picture looks cool. AND we're supposed to be excited when they come back in 10 years and want more upgrades.
Totally understand where you are coming from, and I think this is the bitch of it all. It's impossible to say exactly how it will work, or how much will be generated, etc.
Will Milwaukee die without this? Certainly not. But this city is in rough shape. I work all over Milwaukee. My main place of employment is on Teutonia and Locust. Now I'll be the first to say that the conditions of poverty and the violence that I see at work every day isn't seen everywhere in the city, but what was once isolated to this area has spread out quite a bit. There are a few major projects very close to the Park East area. One up on the hill by Highland, another just to the north just off Walnut.
Right now, those projects are not like what I see at work every day. But the potential is there. If downtown doesn't make a turn, that violence will continue to push in. I asked earlier about how this area would be policed. I didn't mean MPD, I meant how will they control it and encourage the surrounding areas to improve.
If this arena doesn't go through and Park East is left to become...whatever it will become, I feel pretty confident that more projects are likely and more of the inner city aspects of Milwaukee pressing in on downtown. If the arena happens, there's a chance that will be staved off and downtown will be given the opportunity to flourish.
There's no guarantee the new arena will result in all that. But I feel pretty confident NOT adding a new arena will guarantee we creep closer to that worst case scenario.
This is also nothing new here. Milwaukee paid for both County Stadium and the Arena WITHOUT a pro team, and only the hopes of luring one here. Those facilities were 100% taxpayer funded. With the new arena, the Bucks are paying for at least half of it.
"Hey guys, we're going to build an Arena/Stadium, and then this neighborhood is going to be AWESOME!"
Throughout history, that's not really the case (for a variety of reasons).
I don't mean to harp on you, and maybe its all because I want to believe this will work out.
I'm in agreement that in a utopia we wouldn't be spending tax dollars on private enterprise. However, whether it's major corporations (city is spending on the NML building) or arenas for stadium we are in a world where with very rare exception if we aren't willing to pony up some money to get it done another city will. Maybe it's the pragmatist in me, but I accept a little not good for what I see as a greater possible.
One other thing, and I freely admit its impossible to quantify, but I see tremendous potential in the overall scheme....potential I've never seen with other things out of the city. Take the beer garden, one of the great traveshamockeries of Milwaukee is that everyone lives here for the summers.
No one lives here because they really love the winters. So take advantage of the summers and people wanting to be outside. Beer garden, an outdoor amphitheater of some sort, or a soccer field(MLS or maybe the Torrent move down from Uheilen). I hate their beer, but maybe create an outdoor drinking/sports viewing area like Horny Goat does at their bar on 1st street. Make provisions for shopping space that make low impact living possible (walking/biking to housing on N Water, etc) like a Target and a grocery store.
All of that has the potential, and IMHO, likelihood to spur economic growth and the downside of letting the Bucks go doesn't look better than the potential downside of swinging and missing.
I know it's even riskier, but I would be open to doing something really innovative with some of the park east area.
Not many times do cities end up with a blank space in the middle. Arenas are fine, but maybe we could do something radically different.
An "incubation factory" with a combo of office space and living quarters? An urban farming community that is completely self sustaining? (John Deere is a WI company, maybe they want in?). Let's be creative. Let's do something that no other city is doing.
I'm not saying any of my lame ideas are winners, but I'm just tired of the same municipal plans:
"Hey guys, we're going to build an Arena/Stadium, and then this neighborhood is going to be AWESOME!"
Throughout history, that's not really the case (for a variety of reasons).
Correct, but in those cases didn't sports teams pay to use those facilities and/or didn't the faculties generate their own revenue based upon concessions and parking?
I believe now the Bucks will get a very cheap/free lease, and a large cut of all the ancillary funds (parking, concessions, restaurant, merch., etc.)
I think it can be the case though if done correctly. Two examples of this that I've seen are the Giants and Padres stadiums, and I'm sure there are others. The trick is doing it right.
I actually like the idea of ingenuity, but this is still Milwaukee. Can't see any way we go that far against the grain.
That said, getting Will Allen involved somehow wouldn't be the worst idea. I do really want to see this take off, and at least like having multiple attractive hub pieces (with the arena as the largest) to build around. But rather than having the entire area be something new, I think it's more likely that we'll see new grow around something that is considered more conservative (like an arena). Especially in a city that's had as little foresight over the past 30+ years as this one.
I also agree with much of Brew's comments about the economy and about Milwaukee. He should be teaching retail real estate classes at MU.
I really hope you guys are right.
I WANT you guys to be right.
Oh, and because I'm a d*ck, I'll say that Milwaukee already has a huge beer-garden-esque area called "Summerfest".
So, while yes, a beer garden in the middle of the city is cool, it's likely going to redistribute some funds/events from the Summerfest grounds.
We'll all say: "Look the Bucks beer garden is the coolest!", but it might not actually be generating much additional revenue for the city. (I know, I'm a d*ck).
I agree we have Summerfest which was actually the inspiration for "my idea/statement". I agree depending on how you do it you can get some redundancy and might just move revenue. However Summerfest has a specific audience: music fans for two weeks and ethnic festivals on weekends. Great, lets not do those things. But what it it's a beer garden/sports bar but outdoors. How awesome would it be on a nice week night to go watch the NBA playoffs in an outdoor venue and have some beers. Or may World Cup or the Olympics are on and its nice weather....why sit inside and watch it? And ya know if I'm going to spend time around that area cause it's cool and fun I should probably live near there so I can stumble home.
I agree with your innovation stuff.....but let's innovate within the scope of things we know are successful.
Yep. Real innovation mostly comes with private dollars.
Not many politicians are willing to get that creative and take a risk.
Yep, and I think the beer garden could be cool. My only point was they could be doing the same kind of stuff at Summerfest right now, but they don't. That's either because they haven't figured it out, or because there isn't a demand. Either way, I'm not sure my tax dollars are what needs to be used to figure it out (shakes fist).
But, to your point, Summerfest is already booked with a great deal of events, and it's not centrally located, so you're not going to get people just "stopping in".
A centrally located outdoor space could be pretty cool. Could also maybe re-start a spring time event like "Riversplash", which can help draw some people to spend some money downtown.
A centrally located outdoor space could be pretty cool. Could also maybe re-start a spring time event like "Riversplash", which can help draw some people to spend some money downtown.
You've made a number of good points in this thread, but this I have to disagree with.
Lots and lots of real innovation comes with public dollars.
Public money essentially created the Internet and GPS systems.
Many significant medical/pharmaceutical advancements are the result of public funding.
The algorithm which was the backbone of Google's founding was created with federal dollars.
Research into green technology gets massive public support.
All around the world innovative infrastructure projects are in the works funding by public dollars.
Here are some examples:
https://www.kpmg.com/Africa/en/Documents/Infrastructure-100-world-cities-2012.pdf
This is not to say that the private sector doesn't fund innovation as well, but public money always has, and likely always will, play a crucial role in the development of new technologies and better ways of doing things.
I loved Riversplash. Obviously I must have been in the minority, but that was a fun event. Remember seeing Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels there.
I think an outdoor sporting beer garden would have huge potential, and would draw a slightly different crowd than we have anywhere now. A few events that it could highlight:
..
- March: Weather permitting, NCAA viewing parties. Likely be especially big for local teams.
- April-May: Bucks playoff road games, FA Cup, UEFA Champions League
- June-July: World Cup, UEFA Cup, Gold Cup, Summer Olympics, NBA Finals
- August-September: Brewers road games, start of NFL season
- October: MLB Playoffs, NFL games
It could even be opened in colder months for special events, weather permitting. Unseasonably warm February? How about the Super Bowl out there? I know other cities have done this already, so it isn't a completely new idea, but it's something that doesn't exist here and if you've been to Brady Street or Highbury for the World Cup, or any of the hundreds of bars in the city for NCAA games or playoff games, you know the demand is there.
This is just one thing that could help draw people downtown even when there isn't a major event going on. Would it draw away from some other things? Sure, but it would also bring in a lot of traffic that would otherwise be sitting at home doing nothing.
And as far as doing it at Summerfest...they really couldn't do the stuff I listed there. Why? Because there are things going on there every weekend. Summerfest, German Fest, Irish Fest, Festa, Polish Fest, not to mention all the other ethnic festivals that go on down there. There's also no large, centrally located screen on the grounds that is designed for this type of event. You could put it up in the Ampitheater, but again, there's already stuff going on down there.
This would be something very different than Summerfest and would attract a different crowd. Yes, there's always some overlap, but you could easily see Summerfest have an average attendance day during the World Cup and have a few thousand more people downtown watching a game with minimal overlap.
From a micro level, I totally see it. I get it.
From a macro level, you're telling me we have a large scale outdoor park with food and alcohol already available, and now we need to build another one because we can't put up a new screen at the existing one (summerfest)? Yes, there are events there a lot, but it's not like they are there EVERY weekend. I drive over the bridge almost everyday. I see the grounds empty 9 out of 10 times.
Again, I'm probably just being a d*ck, but these are the kinds of tough question I want everybody involved to answer. A new beer garden is a good idea, but is it actually fundamentally different than what we already have? And could we just convert what is already there to be multi-purpose?
A new arena will be fun, but is it fundamentally different than what we already have?
A new beer garden is fun, but is it fundamentally different than what we already have?
The devil is in the details I suppose...
Two notes:
The difference between Summerfest and Brew's proposal is that Summerfest is a large scale, non-electronic venue that due to location is a "planned" destination. Brew's proposal is much more impromptu and works regardless of day of the week. Also Summerfest's calendar seems pretty full
http://milwaukeeworldfestival.com/calendar-of-events (http://milwaukeeworldfestival.com/calendar-of-events)
The second note is that Summerfest and the proposal don't have to be fundamentally different, as long as demand is large enough two venues could be easily supported. In this case with the Brewcity destination there is some differentiation from Summerfest and enough demand to support the two venues with some overlap. Look at Jazz in the Park and whatever the classical music thing is on Wednesdays....very similar but enough demand to support both.
Yes, there are events there a lot, but it's not like they are there EVERY weekend. I drive over the bridge almost everyday. I see the grounds empty 9 out of 10 times.
Since I was thinking about it, I threw this together real fast.
Editor's note: I am not a city planner or in anyway qualified to do these types of plans, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express within the last 4 years.
The new Bucks practice facility is slated to be in there somewhere too, possibly in your triangular parking area to the west.
You could also swap the entertainment complex and put that on the BC site and the parking/practice facility where I have the entertainment site but I don't think that's as strong a layout as it wouldn't spur development north of McKinley as well.
Chicos I think everyone realizes there is a good chance the new stadium won't spur new economic growth. Based on a study I read only 14% of new pro stadiums create new economic growth. So it's a very low chance, but I still think for the benefit of things I care about we need a new arena. The state of Wisconsin is going to be paid back, and there will be some economic impact just from the construction project of building the arena.
Whats the point? If we don't have a new arena, the Bucks are leaving and the state is on the hook for keeping the BC viable and they lose the revenue stream. This is a known.
Do we want to risk the known happening on the chance that the credits and debits work out to slightly negative if we build a stadium? I'm probably restating Brew's point but far less eloquently....we know what we've got now and that it won't work long term, and we know that if we spend a little now we've got a good shot at least neutral in net, potentially home run if we do it right.
Absolutely crazy to hear people are in favor of losing the Bucks. NBA puts teams of a global stage. It is probably the most followed sport in China. When I was in China, every tour guide knew the names of the Buck players.
The financial contributions can't be ignored. $7 million in state tax revenue and growing. Hotel revenue taxes, restaurant activity, many jobs, the Bucks headquarters and staff, the joint venture with Marquette, a hub for development and more jobs, keeping Milwaukee as a big league city, .... Make every economic argument you will, but the prestige associated with a major league city can't be disputed. It puts us on the map for our brand, prospective employers, headquarters, conventions and relocation potentials.
I have been associated with a number of non-profits in Milwaukee and the contributions from the Milwaukee Bucks in both financial and other support has been substantial.
It is just a shame that some folks who don't care about professional basketball have short sighted vision. We funded County Stadium, the new stadium, the arena, the auditorium and countless other amenities. I'm not a big NBA fan but I cherish the fact that they are in Milwaukee.
I think that actually makes a difference. When you have to make something profitable, it's changes the amount of skin in the game.
The Bucks owners are idiots in this whole process then. If that's the known, they shouldn't be putting $1 toward this if the city and state are going to fall all over themselves to pay for it. MU should pay not one single penny either. These teams play this game and the cities are so worried their penis size is getting smaller they'll do anything to keep the team. St. Louis trying to do that now with the Rams. Why are the Bucks owners even willing to put any money in this other than "good will"? How far does good will go in a few years if the team still sucks, etc? It will be evaporated.
You've made a number of good points in this thread, but this I have to disagree with.
Lots and lots of real innovation comes with public dollars.
Public money essentially created the Internet and GPS systems.
Many significant medical/pharmaceutical advancements are the result of public funding.
The algorithm which was the backbone of Google's founding was created with federal dollars.
Research into green technology gets massive public support.
All around the world innovative infrastructure projects are in the works funding by public dollars.
Here are some examples:
https://www.kpmg.com/Africa/en/Documents/Infrastructure-100-world-cities-2012.pdf
This is not to say that the private sector doesn't fund innovation as well, but public money always has, and likely always will, play a crucial role in the development of new technologies and better ways of doing things.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Source?
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.
You'll hate everyone I provide anyway
If teams move, it's because they aren't being supported and quite frankly, Milwaukee does a terrible job of supporting the Bucks. Terrible.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So, you don't have one.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
both are , Kohl = $100mm, new ownership = $150mm
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.
That's pretty much what I thought. This was a response to CBB saying the owners are making poor business decisions. They got a steal on an NBA team, they will recoup everything they spend when they sell, in the mean time they get to brag about owning an NBA team.
Ironic you bring up Petco Park and how that was sold in as TAX FREE to the taxpayer. Ooops.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/feb/12/ticker-taxpayers-271-million-petco-hook/#
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
True, but that's the result of shenanigans by your state lawmakers, not anything the city or developers did.
If that's the case, that they were required to put that money toward it, that makes sense. If they weren't required to, then I wouldn't understand what their incentive is to put a single dime into this. Appreciate the clarification if true.
Yes....shenanigans by gov't....exactly. Crapping on the taxpayers....exactly. Not fulfilling promises....exactly. Misforecasting revenues....exactly. I wouldn't let the city or developers off the hook, either.
"The deal was supposed to pay for itself." Sound familiar?
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/city-promised-new-money-would-pay-for-ballpark-it-cant-prove-it-does/
You're not being completely honest here. When they made those promises, the city of San Diego and stadium developers couldn't have reasonably known that some 12 years after they reached a deal, state legislators would come along and essentially change the law that made the deal possible in a blatant money grab, could they?
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.
Well they have a really good start on a good team and Giannis and Carter Williams are on rookie contracts for two years after this, and Parker has three left. After the rookie deals expire then they become restricted free agents where the bucks can match so they wouldn't have a choice to leave for 6-7 years. The brewers have proven that players will stay in Milwaukee if the teams are good.
I hope you are right, but I have my doubts. In my view the Brewers have lost plenty of talented players, but again hope it works out. I also think you're selling yourself short on what is good. The Bucks record now is "good" in relation to a terrible last decade plus. It is not good in comparison to other good teams or even the bar set by the Bucks back in the day. Going through Milwaukee back in the day was a tough tough game and I'd expect them to win 50+ games every year with the occasional 60+ seasons. In the last 28 years, the Bucks have hit 50 wins one time. That is incredible. Only surpassed .500 9 times in those 28 years and only once in the last 12 years.
Huge difference between baseball and basketball. In baseball if a small market player wants top dollar he has to leave. In the NBA players can actually benefit financially by staying and all teams are limited by the cap in some shape or form. Kevin Durrant just said he wants to finish his career in OKC. Small market....
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12596449/kevin-durant-says-love-stick-oklahoma-city-thunder-whole-career
So as long as you can pay them and build a good team around them you should be able to keep your stars if they like your team and organization.
Bucks are off to a great start with Giannis and Parker. They both have said they want to be with the Bucks long term.
Huge difference between baseball and basketball. In baseball if a small market player wants top dollar he has to leave. In the NBA players can actually benefit financially by staying and all teams are limited by the cap in some shape or form. Kevin Durrant just said he wants to finish his career in OKC. Small market....Agreed. Green Bay was a hell hole until Ron Wolf came and upgraded the organization. If you're treated professionally and pay is in the range you can be competitive.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12596449/kevin-durant-says-love-stick-oklahoma-city-thunder-whole-career
So as long as you can pay them and build a good team around them you should be able to keep your stars if they like your team and organization.
Bucks are off to a great start with Giannis and Parker. They both have said they want to be with the Bucks long term.
The Bucks being good should have nothing to do with this equation.
Too many variables.
The plan is either good, or it's bad.
If we are depending upon a professional sports franchise to win in order to make a plan economically viable, then the plan is already doomed.
Public support for state funding in a turd bowl
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/16/overwhelming-thumbs-down-from-voters-on-150m-in.html
Love to hear how those poll questions were worded. Guessing probably a simple "do you support using tax dollars to pay for the new arena?"
With the way California is operated, they sure should have. They should have protections built in for the taxpayer to understand the risks, which they didn't. Certainly their overinflated revenue numbers were off, which is absolutely not surprising for a gov't entity. They use the rosiest of rosy figures to sell this crap to the public, and then say oops later.
You're still in California? I thought you were on your way to Texas. Seems more like your crowd.
With the new gig, still here for a little while longer. Son is in high school, daughter not far away from starting. We'll see. Idaho is ultimate destination with property purchased and waiting to build, but that's a few years off.
Texas is also a very real short term possibility, though it might be where I go, family stays back and I commute home on weekends. My dad had to do that a number of times with our family. Not ideal, but we'll see.
I've only followed this arena issue in bits and pieces, so i have a hypothetical worst case scenario question.
Let's say the arena deal eventually falls through, the NBA buys back the Bucks, and the team is sold to investors in Seattle. So the Bradley Center then loses it's main tenant.
How does this impact Marquette, if it does at all?
I believe that i read somewhere that the Bradley Center would need around 100 million dollars in upgrades and maintenance to remain open and viable for another 10-15 years. If true, would losing the Bucks impact bringing in funds for those upgrades/maintenance costs and then in turn force a rise in the amount Marquette had to pay in rent going forward?
Remember, even though sports fans are passionate and loud, not that many people are into sports....and that goes down further when it comes to financial support.
Remember, even though sports fans are passionate and loud, not that many people are into sports....and that goes down further when it comes to financial support.
The State is on the hook for the $100 million. Not sure if that eventually trickles down to the tenants in the form of lease rates or not.
I don't know how long MU's lease is with the BC, but once it ends, the rates could be jacked up and there wouldn't be much Marquette could do about it. It's not like they can take their business elsewhere.
I think this $100M claim is nonsense. That's a number just to get people to say "well, we can spend $100M to refurbish the BC or X to build a brand new one." I feel like some are making it sound like the BC is a house of cards and a strong gust of wind is going to knock it down any minute now.
I'm sure you could find a fair number of people who don't care about art, history, the opera, the symphony, the theater, and business conventions yet tax dollars often go to support museums, concert halls, and convention centers.
Question framing is important too. Let's poll people with this question: "Should city, county, and state government try to keep a Milwaukee business that generates over $10 million per year in tax revenue in state or let it go out of state?"
Whether it's $100M or $50M or $20M, it's still a significant chunk of change the state won't have to spend if they just get this built.
Just like the incoming jock tax money won't have to be replaced. Just like the 13 millionaire players' income tax money won't have to be replaced.
Building the arena solves more problems than it creates. Yes, it requires some state funding, but we all know that's how this will play. Wishing for otherwise in this case is pie in the sky.
All about tradeoffs. Should the firefighters get a 3% raise or a 4% raise. Should MPS receive $10M less in support. Should a trolly car be built? Etc, etc. They (the Pols) will have to put the value on this, decide what is most important, figure out if it gets them re-elected or not, and make a decision. Cities like Milwaukee IMO are always going to fall for this stuff and be held hostage because they feel like their prestige is impacted. Doesn't matter that MPS is one of the worst public school systems in America, we have an NBA team and San Diego \ Seattle don't.
It will get figured out, one way or the other...obviously. The world will not end if an arena isn't built, the Bucks leave, nor will it end if the arena is built, but the rosy picture of economic prosperity with these projects often falls short or is completely off target.
Lots of other money in Wisconsin. John Menard is worth $8.9B....build the arena and name it Menard's and we can "all save big money..and watch MU...at Menards" ;) Kohler is worth about $5.5B. We can name it the Kohler Bowl and years when the Bucks stink the catchphrases write themselves. Cargill, Hendricks, Johnson (about 4 of them) are all worth about $3b each in Wisconsin. Sounds like a lawfirm they could create....Cargill, Hendricks, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson....lots of fun potential there.
Here's the thing...this project benefits the state. If the state will reap benefits, why shouldn't they have some buy-in on the project? The state likely wants the jock tax money. The state likely wants the numerous multi-millionaire tax dollars. The state likely also wants a facility that will attract other events. The concerts and other events that require a modern facility to attract. So if the state is going to benefit from this, why shouldn't they have some buy-in?
By giving the state a buy-in, it also gives the state a say in the facility's use and future development going forward. That has value. No, it's not a token amount, but the overall value of having a team offers returns in terms of tax dollars and jobs created. Could you look for that elsewhere? Yes. But why bother when you already have a source identified?
You're not wrong, but how far are we going to take that logic?
Why doesn't the state pay for Kohl's new corporate facility? How about paying for Menards to move it's corp. headquarters to Milwaukee?
I'm not necessarily against trying to attract or retain large businesses (I know city/state governments do it everyday), but once you get on that merry-go-round, it's hard to get off. What is the litmus test we use for this kind of thing? AND, is the city just negotiating out of fear? We have to be comfortable saying "no thanks, that's not a good enough deal."
How about this:
Milwaukee donates the property to the Bucks (Park East, BC, the parking garage east of the BC etc.) The Bucks can build whatever they want, and it can be income and property tax free for the first 10 years. They can build and develop as quickly as possible and get rich for 10 years. At that point, they will have to pay the standard taxes. They cannot sell any of the properties in those years. They have to be involved in the development, and lease the spaces. After 10 years, they can sell whatever they want.
It incentivizes them to work quickly and aggressively on developing profitable businesses and properties. None of this slow-burn kind of development. If arenas are the economic driver, then let's see it in action. Build baby build.
A) you are describing a TIF district...that is a current funding option, just not one that is chosen in this case.
2) We aren't negotiating in a vacuum, teams have other places to go just like corporations do. Its about attracting and retaining revenue streams. We might have to pay some for revenue streams, we just have to hope leadership can come out on the positive end of that transaction
III) I know where you are coming from, but I think you've really got to find a way to be pragmatic on this one. I think you are looking at it in an idealistic way and that's great but it's never going to work that way.
Bottom line: we have to determine if we want to pay a known amount to retain a known amount of revenue with the potential for additional revenue or if we want eliminate the known revenue but at a smaller cost footprint than if we did something.
I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.
As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.
I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.
As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.
At this point, Brew and I aren't even talking about a huge boom to revenue....we are talking about protecting the known revenue vs the alternative of no revenue. In our heads (correct me if I'm wrong Brew) the knowns justify the effort right now...anything that actually happens that they forecasted is gravy.
I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.
To your earlier point, as addressed by me03, cities, counties and states offer huge incentives through things like TIF districts, property tax rebates, sales tax rebates, etc., to attract and retain corporate entities. And, as with sports arenas, they usually lose money on the deal. Ultimately, most decide that the indirect benefits (employment, surrounding development, etc.), outweigh the direct costs.
As to your second point, it would be great if we could let the owners take all the risks. And in a non-competitive marketplace, that's what would happen.
The problem is, other cities want professional sports franchises. There are 30 NBA teams and > 30 cities that want to be NBA cities. And some of those other cities are very willing to take all or a share of the risks off the owners' hands.
I think the key here is not to think of it strictly as a NBA franchise. The Bucks are a company that employs over 100 people. There is full-time and part-time personnel, jobs that would disappear without the franchise. Further, they bring in additional tax revenue through the jock tax. In 2014, that was $6.5 million. Even without the expected NBA salary cap jumps in the next few years, that means in the next 20 years, the jock tax as is would bring in $130 million back to state coffers.
Most likely, the salary cap increase will vastly increase the value of the jock tax, but at current salaries, that will pay for 59% of the proposed bonds. This is all money that will completely go away if the Bucks leave.
I don't know what the Bradley Center maintenance will cost over the next 20 years. However when you factor in the jock tax as is, you are talking about spending at most $90 million in state funds to get this done. High estimates say the BC will require $100 million in maintenance. If that's true, it will be cheaper for the state to help build the arena than it will to let the Bucks go.
I am guessing those estimates are high, but even if it's only $25 million (would be at least that) the state would have to pay for that themselves, and you are still getting a new arena built for $65 million in state funds while retaining a business that draws people downtown and employs over 100 people.
If the arena revitalizes downtown, if the jock tax goes up so the facility essentially pays for itself, if the Bucks are successful and give a sense of state and civic pride, those are all potential benefits, but in terms of actual, tangible, known benefits, I really think those values offset the cost to the state. Anything above that is just icing on the cake.
I'm just not sold that the NBA draws enough people to make it as impactful as everybody believes. Maybe I'm not doing a good enough job understanding how the television money and player salaries benefit the city/state.
As far as the TIF district, ya, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not aware of the intricacies of how this stuff gets negotiated. I'm just thinking from a high-level. If this is going to be such a boom, then let the owners take the risks, and let the owners profit. I'm totally fine with that. They will be far better at it than the city/state could ever be. Let the whole production be privatized. The city and state can make their money down the line.
I think the key here is not to think of it strictly as a NBA franchise. The Bucks are a company that employs over 100 people. There is full-time and part-time personnel, jobs that would disappear without the franchise. Further, they bring in additional tax revenue through the jock tax. In 2014, that was $6.5 million. Even without the expected NBA salary cap jumps in the next few years, that means in the next 20 years, the jock tax as is would bring in $130 million back to state coffers.
Most likely, the salary cap increase will vastly increase the value of the jock tax, but at current salaries, that will pay for 59% of the proposed bonds. This is all money that will completely go away if the Bucks leave.
I don't know what the Bradley Center maintenance will cost over the next 20 years. However when you factor in the jock tax as is, you are talking about spending at most $90 million in state funds to get this done. High estimates say the BC will require $100 million in maintenance. If that's true, it will be cheaper for the state to help build the arena than it will to let the Bucks go.
I am guessing those estimates are high, but even if it's only $25 million (would be at least that) the state would have to pay for that themselves, and you are still getting a new arena built for $65 million in state funds while retaining a business that draws people downtown and employs over 100 people.
If the arena revitalizes downtown, if the jock tax goes up so the facility essentially pays for itself, if the Bucks are successful and give a sense of state and civic pride, those are all potential benefits, but in terms of actual, tangible, known benefits, I really think those values offset the cost to the state. Anything above that is just icing on the cake.
Brew, reeelaaaax. Have a brew. :o
Why should somebody who lives in another state care if it is all private money or some sort of split?
It isn't your money.
Thank goodness you weren't making the decision on Miller Park or the Brewers would be gone now.
The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.
If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery.. and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year .. :o
Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs. Think of the lost tax revenue! And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those. We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer. And two crappy major sports teams. Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!
Miller Park has undoubtedly been good for West Milwaukee. That area south of the stadium was a wasteland. Now there are tons of restaurants and new businesses that previously never had interest in the area. From the Parkway south to Lincoln, a new, thriving business district has sprouted up that didn't exist 15 years ago.
I know, stadiums are no guarantee of growth, but Miller Park has definitely led to a growth spike in an area that was previously moribund.
Wait just a minute there Brew. It only became a wasteland when I stopped cruising Beloit Road and Lincoln Avenue for Pius XI girls. ;D
Why should somebody who lives in another state care if it is all private money or some sort of split?
It isn't your money.
Thank goodness you weren't making the decision on Miller Park or the Brewers would be gone now.
The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.
If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery.. and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year .. :o
Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs. Think of the lost tax revenue! And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those. We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer. And two crappy major sports teams. Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!
The problem is, that argument can be made for any $50m+ business.
If, say, Miller Brewing said they were going to consolidate their operations to Colorado and shut down their Milwaukee operations .. unless the state, city, and county came up with $350m for them to build a new brewery.. and a beer-slide water park that was open 41 days a year .. :o
Well, you say, holy crap, we can't lose 1200 jobs. Think of the lost tax revenue! And that beer-slide water park sounds pretty cool, we want one of those. We can't lose our identity, our major-city reputation is about beer. And two crappy major sports teams. Let's raise $350m, the alternative is awful and this is a no-brainer!
So it became a wasteland because of warriorchick?
Exactly. Nashville Fr. Ryan girls > Pius girls. No contest.
(With the exception of any scooper's beautiful and delightful wife.)
What about DS girls?
1) The city, county and state would only be contributing $250 million to the Bucks not $350 million.
2) Is Miller planning to invest $250 million in private funds like the Bucks owners?
3) Is Miller considering investing an additional $500 million to develop the surrounding area?
4) Is the state on the hook for $25-100 million of expenses if Miller leaves?
If the answer to each of those questions is yes, then you are correct it is a no brainer! Doesn't matter if it is the Bucks, Miller, NWML, etc. Supporting such plans just makes sense. Glad to see you support the new Bucks arena. 8-)
Exactly. Nashville Fr. Ryan girls > Pius girls. No contest.
(With the exception of any scooper's beautiful and delightful wife.)
Uhhh, I passed on Father Ryan women in favor of an Iowa girl! A Marquette woman no less.
As to Father Ryan, having two Father Ryan women in my family (my sisters), don't mess with them! They're pretty, but tough as nails and they bite back!
(Note, the writer is a Father Ryan grad and a Marquette grad!)
Wasn't much of Miller Park paid for by people living out of state that came into town to rent a hotel, rent a car, etc?Not specifically. Miller Park was paid for by an additional 0.1% sales tax in the 5 county area. I suppose that extra 0.1% is also collected on those things, but it's not specifically targeted at them.
Not specifically. Miller Park was paid for by an additional 0.1% sales tax in the 5 county area. I suppose that extra 0.1% is also collected on those things, but it's not specifically targeted at them.
There's a separate tax on hotels, restaurants, and rental cars that pays for Frank Gimbel's Wisconsin Center District to support the Convention Center, Theatre, and the Pantherena.
Exactly. Nashville Fr. Ryan girls > Pius girls. No contest.
(With the exception of any scooper's beautiful and delightful wife.)
Ok, I'm in trouble. :o
No hon. Not ALL Ryan girls are hotter/better than ALL Pius girls, especially any Pius girl that had the intelligence to marry a scooper. But when one can find a Ryan girl that both marries a scooper and IS a scooper.... well, that's top shelf!
(How the sam heck did I get in this????) Better call Saul.
Ok, I'm in trouble. :o
No hon. Not ALL Ryan girls are hotter/better than ALL Pius girls, especially any Pius girl that had the intelligence to marry a scooper. But when one can find a Ryan girl that both marries a scooper and IS a scooper.... well, that's top shelf!
(How the sam heck did I get in this????) Better call Saul.
This is an interesting article about the financial end. Seems like the corporate handout is gigantic.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/04/23/murphys-law-state-bucks-arena-plan-fleeces-milwaukee
This is an interesting article about the financial end. Seems like the corporate handout is gigantic.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/04/23/murphys-law-state-bucks-arena-plan-fleeces-milwaukee
Miller Park has undoubtedly been good for West Milwaukee. That area south of the stadium was a wasteland. Now there are tons of restaurants and new businesses that previously never had interest in the area. From the Parkway south to Lincoln, a new, thriving business district has sprouted up that didn't exist 15 years ago.
I know, stadiums are no guarantee of growth, but Miller Park has definitely led to a growth spike in an area that was previously moribund.
If that article is true, you guys are getting fleeced. What a giveaway...absoute highway robbery by the Bucks who are being asked to do very little.
This is an interesting article about the financial end. Seems like the corporate handout is gigantic.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/04/23/murphys-law-state-bucks-arena-plan-fleeces-milwaukee
If we're going to count the "jock tax" as income that helps pay off the arena, should Milwaukee make a strong play to acquire an NHL team?
Presumably, the new arena could be multi-purpose, and Wisco would attract a team (mostly) full of millionaires paying taxes.
I know Milwaukee has made efforts in the past, but a shiny new arena and some tax incentives like the Bucks are receiving could make it attractive to a NHL franchise, no?
I think the Milwaukee market would not be able to handle both an NBA team and NHL team. Not big enough. Not enough corporate dollars.
Milwaukee is the #39 MSA in the country. A few smaller locations have either an NHL or NBA team, but none have both. In fact the smallest MSA that has both is Denver at #21, and they are about 75% bigger than Milwaukee.
$25 million is small change. These guys are Wall Street guys. They are looking for a big payday years down the road.
The details on the owner/stadium as I know it. The owners are paying 450 million plus $100 million for new stadium. So $550 million...if it's approved. If not, the NBA said they'll buy it back for $475. The average worth of NBA franchise has risen to 74% in the last year, estimating the bucks worth $600M. Not a bad deal for the owners, they probably don't care if the stadium gets built, they still get $25M. And if they do get a sweet deal on the stadium the value probably jumps to 700M (see bud selig). It baffles me that city officials continue to support bad legislation for sport arenas.
What a joke, let them move. Looking objectively (not as a MU fan) this deal is complete garbage. More pathetic than what MN just approved the billionaire crook. If the bucks improve, fans will go to the Bradley center in droves. It's the owners that don't make enough money. It's just sports, has very little value on the city outside of entertainment. It's been proven. Free agents don't want to live in MKE or MSP during the winter months, Wiggins and Parker will likely leave when their contracts are up.
Consider from 1979 to 1987 the Bucks won 50 games seven straight years and appeared in eight Conference Semifinals and three Conference Finals. Then free agency became popular. Since 1991 season the bucks have ONE 50 win season, spanning 24 years. They've only won 2 playoff series during this time, both in 2001. Besides the two expansion teams, no team has performed worse. They're a joke.
The details on the owner/stadium as I know it. The owners are paying 450 million plus $100 million for new stadium. So $550 million...if it's approved. If not, the NBA said they'll buy it back for $475. The average worth of NBA franchise has risen to 74% in the last year, estimating the bucks worth $600M. Not a bad deal for the owners, they probably don't care if the stadium gets built, they still get $25M. And if they do get a sweet deal on the stadium the value probably jumps to 700M (see bud selig). It baffles me that city officials continue to support bad legislation for sport arenas.
#1 How much does a NBA arena and franchise really help the city, specifically Milwaukee? I'm not talking about emotional appeal "It's good for the city!" or pretty pictures. I'm talking hard dollars (revenue) and branding value.
#2 Everybody has to check their emotions at the door. You may like the Bucks. You may LOVE the NBA. Doesn't mean this is a good deal for the city. I love golf, but I don't think Milwaukee should invest 200million dollars into a golf course to attract more tournaments and players. It would be stupid.
From the poll I linked above:
If the team leaves, the state of Wisconsin will lose more than $730 million dollars in revenue over 30 years, and will be forced to pay over $100 million to keep the Bradley Center open, hurting Wisconsin’s ability to fund other priorities like education and economic development.
I'd suggest opponents also "check their emotions at the door" since one of the most common arguments is "It's just sports and a lot of people don't care about sports."
I strongly suggest you read the article I linked above. One proposal states "As you know, under the arena development proposal, the state would borrow $150 million dollars, which will be repaid by tax revenue generated by the Milwaukee Bucks. The loan would come from a state run trust fund, so the state would be borrowing from itself, and NOT from Wall Street. By law, all interest paid back on the loan would go directly towards state education funding." If that is all true, seems like supporting a new stadium is a slam dunk. And that isn't even factoring in the potential $500 million in neighboring developments.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but this was my point before...
If a NBA franchise and new arena generate that much revenue, then lets get a NHL franchise as well. The template is already laid out. For a minimal investment, the city and state get a big return.
Like I said, the Blackhawks won't let Milwaukee get an NHL team. Let's not waste precious internet space talking about something that isn't going to happen.
Also don't forget law of diminishing returns and how big the entertainment revenue pie is. Economics don't work that way....."we have a really successful car dealership here, lets open 8 more and we'll make millions more"
Ammo, you have yet to mention anything about the article I linked. Read that and give me your thoughts. Please try to stay on topic and not muddy the waters with a hypothetical NHL tangent. Thanks.
Ah ha, not THAT is a legitimate concern.
However, we'd be doubling the amount of people and nights the facilities are used. While add a NHL franchise wouldn't DOUBLE the impact of the arena, we still only have to pay for the arena once, right?
We get twice as many events at the new facility, and a roster full of millionaires moving to Wisconsin.
Same cost, 1.5 times the benefit?
One fixed cost is the same(stadium) all the incidental costs would be incurred for the NHL team(concessions, ticket takers, maintenance, clean-up etc). If my business is open from 8AM to 8PM and I generate $1000 in revenue a day, if I stay open 8PM to 8AM as well....my costs are the same nominally but I guarantee I'm not generating $1000 of revenue in that 2nd 12 hour segment.
Again, doubling the opportunities to have someone buy a ticket for an NHL/NBA team doesn't guarantee there is double the demand. Don't know what the Admirals draw but I can't imagine that going from a minor league team to an NHL team will mean significant more ticket sales.
You're right, but like I said, let's split the difference.
Instead of 18,000 people 41 nights per year, let's say both teams have to "share" more fans.
14,000 for 82 nights per year isn't twice as many, but it's a lot more than only have 1 team.
Plus, Jock income tax will help pay for all of it. NHL franchise salary floor is $51M. How much income tax is that going to generate per season?
The problem with the NHL is: Las vegas, Seattle and Quebec city are going to get franchises. probably 2 new and one is moved. From the below. After that I'm thinking the NHL sits tight for a 5 years. Vegas and QB are building Stadiums now. Seattle is getting closer to a new stadium and is a much better market then MKE.
Arizona Coyotes 13,345 -3.1% 77.9%
Carolina Hurricanes 12,594 -18.7% 67.4%
Florida Panthers 11,265 -20.5% 66.1%
I read the article.
It doesn't really include enough details/footnotes/independent sources for me to really comment.
EXAMPLE:
"$150 million dollars will generate $750 million dollars in additional investment from the private sector and create thousands of jobs, while doing nothing will cause the Milwaukee Bucks to leave Wisconsin and cost the state more than $730 million in lost tax revenue."
Bruce Murphy is a solid reporter.
NHL in Milwaukee would be bad for MU. It would put us further down the priority list for dates at the new Arena, and it would draw away interest from casual sports fans. Our corporate season ticket holders would decrease, and casual fans that are just looking for something fun to do every now and then would likely pick NHL over NCAA basketball. Plus, we would get even less coverage on the local media, pushed further down the sports page, mentioned less in the sports highlight shows, and probably get even worse radio broadcast coverage.
How about a compromise...a NHL team and we kick the Bucks to Seattle? That way we are the only basketball in town while the beautiful game of hockey (not minor league) is brought to Milwaukee. :P
How about a compromise...a NHL team and we kick the Bucks to Seattle? That way we are the only basketball in town while the beautiful game of hockey (not minor league) is brought to Milwaukee. :P
I must be in the minority. Get rid of an NBA team to make room for an NHL team? ?-(
I'm in the minority, but I can't stand the NBA and love the NHL. I like the NHL prima donnas 100X over the NBA prima donnas.
I'm in the minority, but I can't stand the NBA and love the NHL. I like the NHL prima donnas 100X over the NBA prima donnas.NHL is an acquired taste not shared by many. Boring, just like soccer. Lots of wasted energy with no results. Peculiar games.
NHL is an acquired taste not shared by many. Boring, just like soccer. Lots of wasted energy with no results. Peculiar games.
I can only think of one legit NHL prima donna and thats Crosby. Then you have players like Sean Avery and Raffi Torres. But agree with the general sentiment, love the NHL not so much the NBA.
Some will argue that, though most of those people I don't think even understand the skill it takes just to skate before having the hand-eye coordination of what they need to do with a stick and a 3 inch puck that can travel 100mph an hour, all while other guys on the ice are trying to lay you out.One can always go to the Ice Capades. At least there is some gracefulness and style. To each their own.
I find the NBA to be somewhat the opposite. Lots of results, but boring because it is too easy. 50% of shots go in, effort in parts of the game is not there until later in the game (my perception). In hockey, I know for that 1 minute shift they are busting tail because they are so gassed when they come off.
To each their own.
One can always go to the Ice Capades. At least there is some gracefulness and style. To each their own.
I really dont think you understand the skill required. I have played a ton of sports competitively. I dont claim to be really good at any of them besides volleyball and bowling. By far of all the sports I decided to pick up, hockey was the hardest. Ive played recreationally for close to 4 years now and its still my worst sport. Its incredibly difficult.No doubt, but that does not make it a good spectator sport. Lots of banging and whatever. I've been to a Frozen 4 near the net. Spectacular action, but..........
No doubt, but that does not make it a good spectator sport. Lots of banging and whatever. I've been to a Frozen 4 near the net. Spectacular action, but..........
Honestly, having been to every major championship this country has to offer, being in the sports world for nearly two decades....there isn't a better major spectator sport IMO. Plenty of sports executives will tell you the same thing. Football is not a good spectator sport. Basketball has its moments, but nothing in person compares to the NHL.
Been the best live sport since football was closer to rugby than American football. I'd argue that it rakes in more cash than any other sport in this country.
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54d421b0e4b096d31b6236e4/t/54e8e6b8e4b08f2aaf334aa6/1424549561281/)
Ammo, thanks for the response. I believe that $730 million is over a 30 year period, and yes, it is mostly and perhaps entirely from income taxes.
Several of the questions are based off of a plan Scott Fitzgerald has floated. To better educate yourself see:
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/10/public-funding-deal-for-bucks-arena-could-get-done.html?page=all (http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/10/public-funding-deal-for-bucks-arena-could-get-done.html?page=all)
One highlight from this article:
"Abele's office had said Thursday that Fitzgerald's proposal to potentially borrow from the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands "is a viable and creative strategy."
Fitzgerald said he feels confident the majority of Republicans will support a plan he is advancing with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) to attain $150 million in state funding for the arena through the state Board of Commissioners of Public Lands.
The public agency has about $1 billion in assets and makes loans for local projects. The state would pay back the principal plus 3.75 percent interest with the proceeds going to public education, Fitzgerald said.
“I think we have a plan that really works for everybody,” Fitzgerald said. “We’ve just got to continue to massage it and get everybody to the right place. We’re waiting for the city to come up with their piece.”
Fitzgerald said his proposal would be “somewhat revenue-neutral” for the state budget. Because of that, he believes legislators from out-state, who are neutral at best on public funding for the arena project, would support his plan."
The MMAC poll mentions aspects of this proposal and the results show consistent statewide support. Truthfully I'm a skeptic of the ancillary benefits of new stadiums and think financial impact numbers are often inflated and overhyped. It's like sprinkles on a sundae...sure the sprinkles would be nice but I'm much more concerned about the sundae. To me the sundae looks appealing.
Done them all....Super Bowls, Stanley Cups, Final Fours, All-star games, championship fights (boxing and UFC), Indy 500, Daytona 500, World Cup, Olympics, BCS Title game, Breeders Cup, Rose Bowls...nothing compares for me at least.
I've never done the Army-Navy game or a Kentucky Derby...I've heard both are great. Can't say I've ever done anything high level with Rugby, but that would be fun. To me it's hockey because of the intensity in the rink and speed, power, finesse, brute force, etc, all wrapped into one game on a surface that is amazingly difficult to play on.
Are sports teams a need? No, they are a want but I see it as a quality of life issue. If say the Milwaukee Art Museum or Zoo needed public funding to stay open I would support that too. Not everyone goes to the zoo or art museum, just like not everyone goes to the Bucks or Marquette games. But I think it improves the quality of life for the Milwaukee area and the entire state of Wisconsin. I only lived in the Milwaukee area when I attended Marquette but have traveled to Bucks games, Brewers games, the Milwaukee Art Museum and Zoo from other parts of the state throughout my life. So, yes it is not a need but I still support it. I agree an NHL team would have a positive financial impact but I see that as an improbability so why bother discussing it. If legislators want to waste their time lobbying the NHL, then whatever. While they're at it they could retrofit Miller Park for football and hope an NFL team comes to Milwaukee.
The non-partisan legislative fiscal bureau is on the record saying that the Bucks generate $6.5 million dollars per year in income tax revenue. Over 20 years that is $130 million even if NBA salaries remain perfectly flat. Do you see that happening? I don't. What that number will be I don't know but I know it will be north of $130 million. I've seen NBA salary cap projections of $85 million and $105 million for the next two years, up from $65 million this year. Bucks current payroll is $63.6 million (though probably lower after factoring in the Larry Sanders buyout). Doing the math it's easy to project the Bucks and NBA generating $10.5 million per year in income taxes alone. Now we're talking $210 million over 20 years if the salary cap never rises above $105 million.
So at a minimum the state is set to lose $130 million over 20 years and that number could very easily be north of $200 million. Plus, the Bradley Center needs upkeep of $100 million over the next 10 years according to bizjournals.com. So option one, lose the Bucks and the state is out $130-200+million plus $100 million spent on the BC. So we're talking $230-330 million all told. Which looks about to be what the state would need to fund the stadium...ta da...the stadium is self funded! (Actually I went back and did the math...$150 million at 3.75% paid back over 20 years= $213.44 million.)
Ok, now that we've established that let's look at other benefits. $250 million in private money is used to build the stadium,which spurs construction jobs. Keeping the Bucks is a gain of $250 million dollars minimum. Losing the Bucks costs a minimum $230-330 million. So the Bucks are a net to the state of $480-580 million minimum over the next 20 years.
I could speculate on what losing the Bucks could mean to area business and restaurants but those numbers are very hard to prove. But the Bucks are a minimum $480 million asset. If the additional $500 million in development happens, the Bucks could be worth $1 billion, if not more. We're creeping closer to that $1.4 billion number. See how easy that was? Just need to do the math and use some critical thinking to see the positives. A $1 billion asset isn't a need but it sure is a hell of a want!
As for the Murphy article, those numbers are all hypothetical. There is no guarantee that land is developed with or without the Bucks. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you think that land is developed without the Bucks and if those benefits outweigh keeping the Bucks and possibly having the development of the stadium entertainment district.
Agreed, Murphy isn't 100% correct either.
However, he does at least count for the opportunity cost that I don't think arena proponents ever want to talk about.
The Bucks will generate $X amount of dollars per year, but they are also NOT paying taxes on the arena, or possibly their developments around the arena. If you put something else in those spaces, there will be tax revenue, so we need to at least consider that, even if it's simply potential/hypothetical (we're talking about 30 years).
I'm in favor of these types of tax incentives for the Bucks, but everybody (especially politicians) need to be more transparent when we discuss how much the Bucks are worth to the city and state, and how much they are potentially going to cost the city/state is opportunity costs.
And again, I'm not necessarily against a new arena, but the plan needs to be good. AND, I'll challenge anybody who says that it's a no-brainer. It's not a no-brainer. Part of coming up with a mutual beneficial deal is a willingness to say "no thanks". Politicians and city planners need to engage their critical thinking skills.
AND, the NHL stuff I brought up is basically nonsense, but my point is that if anybody tries to convince you that this is a great deal for Milwaukee, ask that person why we shouldn't attempt to get an NHL franchise as well. If the income tax revenues (alone) far outweigh the investment, then it's a no-brainer, right?
Are sports teams a need? No, they are a want but I see it as a quality of life issue. If say the Milwaukee Art Museum or Zoo needed public funding to stay open I would support that too. Not everyone goes to the zoo or art museum, just like not everyone goes to the Bucks or Marquette games. But I think it improves the quality of life for the Milwaukee area and the entire state of Wisconsin. I only lived in the Milwaukee area when I attended Marquette but have traveled to Bucks games, Brewers games, the Milwaukee Art Museum and Zoo from other parts of the state throughout my life. So, yes it is not a need but I still support it. I agree an NHL team would have a positive financial impact but I see that as an improbability so why bother discussing it. If legislators want to waste their time lobbying the NHL, then whatever. While they're at it they could retrofit Miller Park for football and hope an NFL team comes to Milwaukee.
The non-partisan legislative fiscal bureau is on the record saying that the Bucks generate $6.5 million dollars per year in income tax revenue. Over 20 years that is $130 million even if NBA salaries remain perfectly flat. Do you see that happening? I don't. What that number will be I don't know but I know it will be north of $130 million. I've seen NBA salary cap projections of $85 million and $105 million for the next two years, up from $65 million this year. Bucks current payroll is $63.6 million (though probably lower after factoring in the Larry Sanders buyout). Doing the math it's easy to project the Bucks and NBA generating $10.5 million per year in income taxes alone. Now we're talking $210 million over 20 years if the salary cap never rises above $105 million.
So at a minimum the state is set to lose $130 million over 20 years and that number could very easily be north of $200 million. Plus, the Bradley Center needs upkeep of $100 million over the next 10 years according to bizjournals.com. So option one, lose the Bucks and the state is out $130-200+million plus $100 million spent on the BC. So we're talking $230-330 million all told. Which looks about to be what the state would need to fund the stadium...ta da...the stadium is self funded! (Actually I went back and did the math...$150 million at 3.75% paid back over 20 years= $213.44 million.)
Ok, now that we've established that let's look at other benefits. $250 million in private money is used to build the stadium,which spurs construction jobs. Keeping the Bucks is a gain of $250 million dollars minimum. Losing the Bucks costs a minimum $230-330 million. So the Bucks are a net to the state of $480-580 million minimum over the next 20 years.
I could speculate on what losing the Bucks could mean to area business and restaurants but those numbers are very hard to prove. But the Bucks are a minimum $480 million asset. If the additional $500 million in development happens, the Bucks could be worth $1 billion, if not more. We're creeping closer to that $1.4 billion number. See how easy that was? Just need to do the math and use some critical thinking to see the positives. A $1 billion asset isn't a need but it sure is a hell of a want!
Lastly, I'm skeptical of the 500M in development, AND, if there is eventual development, I'm skeptical that we can attribute it to the arena. We have a multipurpose arena in the same neighborhood currently. It has spurned very little development since 1988. (certainly not 500M). While a new arena would be more attractive, and the economic and social climate is different in Milwaukee, I'm still skeptical that BAM! $500M is going to show up around the arena. Didn't happen last time.I think you're right to be skeptical of the $500M in additional development, and nobody is saying it's going to happen instantly. However, we've gone through this issue multiple times in this thread why the BC isn't the best example. The BC was built for higher capacity and luxury boxes, not necessarily to spur surrounding development. The proposed design of the new arena at least has much more opportunity to spur surrounding development.
If you don't put the arena in, what goes in there that not only doesn't have the tax exception but pays taxes? What is the reason that business is going into that cite without city incentive? Where are these businesses going if they aren't going in the current BC area? Basically, is the space and location valuable enough that incentives are not required....I don't think so but I'd love to hear why you think it is.
And with the NHL stuff you are missing the point again....the tax revenues of a basketball and hockey franchise can't be generated in the volume to offset the cost. There isn't enough demand in the market size we're in. If you want to make an argument that we get an NHL team instead of the Bucks you've got a line of discussion. If it's both it's nonsense.
I think you're right to be skeptical of the $500M in additional development, and nobody is saying it's going to happen instantly. However, we've gone through this issue multiple times in this thread why the BC isn't the best example. The BC was built for higher capacity and luxury boxes, not necessarily to spur surrounding development. The proposed design of the new arena at least has much more opportunity to spur surrounding development.
I hate to sound like such a crusty old man, but I'm not sure that adding a beer garden and creating better sidewalks is going to spur $500M in development.You raise an issue that I don't think gets enough weight. There has to be a ceiling on the entertainment dollars that are spent. If they go to one place they don't go to another. I am in favor of public help for these venues, but to say that this spurs "X" amount of new development is mostly disingenuous. Granted "X" dollars are being spent there, but for the most part those dollars are going to be spent on entertainment somewhere. This discussion may be how the whole thing has to be sold, but in the end I think it comes down to a quality of life argument, and whether or not having the Bucks and a new venue is worth the dollars necessary to develop the venue.
I completely understand that this plan is better than the BC's plan, I'm just skeptical that it's 500M better.
Will there be more "stuff" surround the new arena? Absolutely. Will it be actual growth, or just redistribution of entertainment and real-estate dollars? Well, that's a long-term study, and above my pay grade.
There will actually be an opportunity for nearby development now with available space, which there wasn't previously.
On the NHL - the average team payroll is about $60M, so at the highest state income tax bracket that's about $4.5M annually. Let's round it up to $5M to include all the other front office and support staff people. This will increase over time, but not as much as the projected NBA salaries due to their new TV deal. So offering an NHL team $150M to relocate here is looking at a really long payback period (20+ years) just to break even. Next, the owners have to actually believe they can make money here. If Milwaukee can't support a profitable franchise, no owner is going to move here despite the incentive we're giving them. The Phoenix, Carolina and Florida franchises are already in rough shape and potentially looking to relocate to Quebec, Las Vegas and Seattle. Those are all markets without NBA competition, so I doubt Milwaukee would look more attractive to owners than any of those, or even Kansas City.
You raise an issue that I don't think gets enough weight. There has to be a ceiling on the entertainment dollars that are spent. If they go to one place they don't go to another. I am in favor of public help for these venues, but to say that this spurs "X" amount of new development is mostly disingenuous. Granted "X" dollars are being spent there, but for the most part those dollars are going to be spent on entertainment somewhere. This discussion may be how the whole thing has to be sold, but in the end I think it comes down to a quality of life argument, and whether or not having the Bucks and a new venue is worth the dollars necessary to develop the venue.
You raise an issue that I don't think gets enough weight. There has to be a ceiling on the entertainment dollars that are spent. If they go to one place they don't go to another. I am in favor of public help for these venues, but to say that this spurs "X" amount of new development is mostly disingenuous. Granted "X" dollars are being spent there, but for the most part those dollars are going to be spent on entertainment somewhere. This discussion may be how the whole thing has to be sold, but in the end I think it comes down to a quality of life argument, and whether or not having the Bucks and a new venue is worth the dollars necessary to develop the venue.
Correct. That's why I wasn't really in favor of moving the arena to a new neighborhood.
Now, if we can get some additional businesses, and some population growth/density in the area, then I think we can start saying that it's "growth" not redistribution.
If it's just bars/restaurants/hotels, well, I'm not sure if that's exactly growth. We're likely just stealing from 3rd street and water st.
I get where you are coming from but I don't think you are going to get the answers you are looking for because they don't exist. As a product manager I have to come up with a proposed project/strategy and develop a cost and revenue forecast that I then use to justify the project. As the project moves forward the forecasts become more accurate but even by the time we launch the project the forecast could be way off. We have to look at it from an experienced eye to say "yep, this seems the likely outcome lets keep going".
We can storyboard and forecast the bejezus out of the numbers but we aren't going to get past them being speculation, there are far too many pieces to know for sure. So I look at the numbers we know, the numbers we think we know, and what I perceive are the market trends for and against this effort. I come up with make this happen and it's a no brainer. You have to reach your own conclusion.
The numbers and detail you are looking for exist within the planning team but you'll never see them because they only people that care or understand what it all is....us super nerds :)
However, we have to be willing to do all of the analysis, case studies, etc. to really understand all of the risks and all of the benefits.
For me personally, I find it hard to trust anybody who only shows me the upside of this project (ohhh, shiny!). You and Brew have actually done a good job convincing me, because the expectations are realistic and we openly discuss the risks and challenges. Transparency.
(insert politician) telling me that losing the Bucks is going to cost us $XXXM per year just seems disingenuous.
They are using an emotional appeal (nobody likes to lose, and keeping the Bucks is a "win"), and hiding it behind an economic appeal "Look at the loss in revenue".
At the end of the day, if this gets done, there will be a big ribbon cutting ceremony, and when the neighborhood is packed, everybody will say "SEE!!! It worked!". I'm just not so sure it's that simple.
Rather than looking it as keeping the Bucks is a win, I prefer to look at what we lose if they go. Not from a pride sense, or a "must have sports to be big market team" mindset, but more the tangibles.
..
- From the selfish point of view, Marquette loses the chance to play in a new arena.
- The state effectively loses whatever money they have to put into the BC. The figure is probably between $25M-$100M over the next 10-20 years exclusively from taxes and becomes a sunk cost.
- The state loses jock tax money. Current numbers are $6.5M/year or $130M/20 years. The expected NBA cap increases will likely raise those numbers to $10M/year and $200M/20 years.
- This chance of revitalizing downtown is lost. The current makeup of downtown is not attracting growth. Note I am not saying this would guarantee growth.
- Many potential events will be lost. A new arena could attract a NBA All-Star game, NCAA Regional Final, and high profile concerts that may bypass the city if the BC is the main attraction.
- Another beer garden. I know, we already have some beer gardens, but you can never have enough beer gardens.
- Conservatively, 130 jobs will be lost. From front office staff to security to concessions, many workers rely on the Bucks for both full-time and part-time employment.
I realize there are other ways to supplant these things. Marquette could build an on-campus arena. The state could find new ways to implement taxes to offset the jock tax. A different project could come along and revitalize downtown. Other jobs could be found or created. And we could drink elsewhere.
However, if the Bucks stay, we don't have to find those other avenues. This project takes care of quite a few problems that could, and some that certainly would, pop up over the next couple decades. It's no panacea, but there are numerous definite, known positives that it will absolutely bring to the city and state, and it feels to me like letting the team go will ultimately create more problems that the city and state will need to find creative ways to solve.
And let's be honest...in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, finding creative solutions to problems isn't always our strong suit :-\
Now, I think it would be wise for the city of Milwaukee to spend $100 million because I see a $1 billion project all told. Bang for your buck if you ask me.
To address your first point, honestly, I have no idea. I'm not a city planner. I'm not involved in urban real-estate at all. I'm just trying to challenge some of the numbers that are thrown out there like they are absolutes. There is opportunity costs to making this deal. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, so making the Bucks deal might be the best option. I have no idea how to calculate the true opportunity costs or potential of those properties. But, I don't want anybody to pretend that they don't exist. In might be theoretical at this point, but they do exist. Again, I'm just trying to find transparency. Murphy column was pretty slanted against. Some other articles are pretty biased towards the arena.
As far as the NHL, I don't think I'm making my point clearly.
It has been discussed by some people that the "Jock tax" will more than cover the investment. Plus, the income taxes of other employees related to the franchise (I'm not talking arena operations, I'm talking FRANCHISE operations.)
If somebody makes that argument, I have to challenge that thinking and ask why we shouldn't try to get an NHL franchise as well? Certainly the jock tax and franchise employees will cover the cost to attract a franchise, right? Give an NHL franchise $150M to move as sign a long term lease.
As far as the franchise's ultimate success or failure, I don't care. That's not my point. My point is that if we believe that jock tax and income tax from franchise employees is more than enough to make this deal attractive, then we attempt to land an NHL franchise as well.
An NHL franchise is not going to be worth double to the city, but as I said, I'm talking about specific taxes, not theoretical economic impact.
2) I actually perfectly understand Ammo's point about an NHL team but don't feel it is worth discussing. It is unrealistic and only serves to distract from the actual discussion about the Bucks. Might as well discuss whether unicorns should be permitted to run in the Kentucky Derby.
Just once I would like you to take an argument to its logical conclusion. One time. You have a whole lot of "oh, well x is also a possibility but I don't know, I'm not an expert, you figure it out." Which leaves me thinking "hey, thanks for the complete lack of insight. Glad I wasted that time." Your NHL point is incredibly stupid for the following reasons.
(1) We don't have the population base to support a team. A team that doesn't have the income doesn't pay the player salaries and therefore doesn't generate the income taxes. The tv audience isn't there, the sheer population of people buying tickets and merchandise aren't there. We are not New York City.
(2) Splitting the attendance, even as high as 14,000 each, is an atrocious number. They will cannibalize each other. Over saturation kills markets. With that kind of attendance both teams would be gone eventually. Probably within 10 years. No tax revenue after that.
(3) There are infinitely better options for teams wanting to move. Those have been stated already so I won't beat that horse to death.
(4) Even if we somehow managed to get both NBA and NHL to schedule around each other and stay for the long haul, Marquette is the loser as we are now priority number 3 at the new arena.
Here are some additional benefits that people seem to always leave out.
(1) Property taxes: most players own a house in the area.
(2) Sales tax: merchandise, tickets, etc.
(3) Whatever the players spend/buy while in town.
(4) Charity: the Bucks players and franchise donate tons of money and hours to charity every year.
In conclusion
(1) Focus on what we can support and control, and at this point that is the Bucks.
(2) A new arena doesn't turn us into Manhattan, but it does preserve a valuable resource.
(3) For the love of God please stop hurting my brain with undeveloped, pie-in-the-sky arguments.
I'm trying to be honest. I don't have all of the answers. I don't bring up counterpoints to be annoying. I bring them up because I think they get missed or buried when people say: "Oh, but it's good for the community!"
You want my hot sports take? Fine.
This is my visceral reaction to this whole thing:
The Bucks can f-ing leave. Bye.
The NBA business model apparently requires that the public give them A LOT of money just so they will do business here. We can call it an "investment", but the reality is, it's a f-ing gift. It's not even corporate welfare. It's just a gift. Here. Take this. Please stay.
If the Bucks need more money, raise ticket prices.
Furthermore, if this "investment opportunity" was so great, there would be investors lining up to get in on it. We wouldn't need state money. Hasn't really happened. Why? Because it's a losing proposition. There are numerous studies out there that illustrate that public funded arenas rarely (if ever) make the economic impact that politicians and everybody claims. Is Milwaukee the magical market that's going to make it work? Not likely.
If the goal is a healthy and vibrant downtown community, then we have to look at all of the tactics. AND, we need to be prepared to take a hit for the long-term good. Let them walk. It'll hurt. But, we'll be better in the long run. We can't fall in love with a specific tactic, and miss the big picture. Bad idea.
For the record, I live, work and pay income and property taxes in Milwaukee.
AND
GET OFF MY LAWN.
120 jobs lost? Bucks as a $100m revenue company, lost? PIKERS!You are comparing apples to oranges. I bet 99% of the population doesn’t know that Assurant is in Milwaukee. It’s never been an economic thing for me. It’s a quality of life and pride thing and losing the Bucks would be a large intangible loss for the city. In the narrow view in terms of only economics you and Canned Goods have a point, but it is much more than that.
Try 1,200 jobs and $2 BILLION lost. Today's front page:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/assurant-considering-sale-of-milwaukee-based-assurant-health-b99490422z1-301614251.html
Maybe we'd have a State/County/City bailout to keep them here if those 1200 knew how to dribble and entertain.
.. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that we would do that. The market (and perhaps lack of industry acumen) has spoken, and Assurant needs to shuffle off.
The point .. cities and states lose whales like this. If that whale happens to be a sports team, pols run around with their hair on fire, meanwhile another business 10x the size and negative impact is closing its doors.
Bottom line is Milwaukee downtown will become a dump with no possibility of development if the bucks leave.
You are comparing apples to oranges. I bet 99% of the population doesn’t know that Assurant is in Milwaukee. It’s never been an economic thing for me. It’s a quality of life and pride thing and losing the Bucks would be a large intangible loss for the city. In the narrow view in terms of only economics you and Canned Goods have a point, but it is much more than that.
Forget about the team’s success or lack of success, the Bucks have been a big part of the city for a long time and their loss would be huge. How would you feel if you lived in Milwaukee and MU Basketball moved to Seattle? You would be against it and it would suck and it’s no different for Bucks fans. (Be good for Keefe though)
I'm not trying to divert the topic of this thread, but this statement is just not accurate.
Besides Assurant's issue isn't a new facility that will drive traffic to their offices.....it's that the market totally changed for them with the implementation of the ACA and they can no longer do business profitably.
If Assurant needed a new office to stay in business and would drive traffic to nearby areas as well....depending on the fundamentals Brew and I pull together, I'd be likely to support such a thing.
That would be like me leaving my wife because, you know, maybe I could land Jessica Alba.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/04/29/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-will-attend-arena.html?ana=tw
Wait, is she available?????
It's not inaccurate either. It's opinion. If the Bucks leave we know what happens on the budget ledger from a cost and revenue standpoint. What is unclear is what happens after the Bucks leave to the businesses that remain. Obviously the BC stays in place and there will be some concerts and Admirals and Marquette games. Is that enough to sustain the business currently in place? If not, some of those businesses go away which could further erode the value in investing downtown.....it becomes a thermal runaway type of situtation.
Not saying that does happen, but a lot of people want to poo poo the cost benefit analysis of keeping the Bucks here without addressing the even large unknowns of what happens to the area if the Bucks do leave.
We have a lot of current and proposed development and renovations in the downtown area that have nothing to do with the fact that we have (or might not have) the Bucks. Here's a sample:
-Continued Pabst Brewery redevelopment (including Frederick Lofts - new building)
-Northwestern Mutual tower
-Kimpton hotel in the Third Ward
-Dohmen office space
-Blue Cross Blue Shield renovation (office to apartments)
-Posner building upper floors renovation to apartments
-River House development (apartments)
-North End Phase III (apartments)
-Walkers Landing (apartments)
-Avenir Apartments
-Mackie Building renovation and new development (mixed use)
-700 E Michigan renovation (apartments)
-833 E Michigan (Irgens office tower)
-Couture residential tower (40+ story proposed)
-700 E Kilbourn (35+ story proposed residential)
-Mandel tower on Prospect (20+ story proposed residential)
-Rumored JCI 50+ story office tower on Michigan
Milwaukee's chugging along and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.
You have a thing for Headband's wife?
-Continued Pabst Brewery redevelopment (including Frederick Lofts - new building)
-Northwestern Mutual tower
-Kimpton hotel in the Third Ward
-Dohmen office space
-Blue Cross Blue Shield renovation (office to apartments)
-Posner building upper floors renovation to apartments
-River House development (apartments)
-North End Phase III (apartments)
-Walkers Landing (apartments)
-Avenir Apartments
-Mackie Building renovation and new development (mixed use)
-700 E Michigan renovation (apartments)
-833 E Michigan (Irgens office tower)
-Couture residential tower (40+ story proposed)
-700 E Kilbourn (35+ story proposed residential)
-Mandel tower on Prospect (20+ story proposed residential)
-Rumored JCI 50+ story office tower on Michigan
Milwaukee's chugging along and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome.
120 jobs lost? Bucks as a $100m revenue company, lost? PIKERS!
Try 1,200 jobs and $2 BILLION lost. Today's front page:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/assurant-considering-sale-of-milwaukee-based-assurant-health-b99490422z1-301614251.html
Maybe we'd have a State/County/City bailout to keep them here if those 1200 knew how to dribble and entertain.
.. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that we would do that. The market (and perhaps lack of industry acumen) has spoken, and Assurant needs to shuffle off.
The point .. cities and states lose whales like this. If that whale happens to be a sports team, pols run around with their hair on fire, meanwhile another business 10x the size and negative impact is closing its doors.
The studies everybody talks about are when its 100% funded. do any of the studies show when its 40% funded but the Government? Also has anybody done a study on a city in a Med size market that has lost 1 of the Big 3 teams and how it effects the City? (it needs to be in the Big Revenue sports era) Losing the browns set downtown Cleveland back. Seattle is a much bigger city and has 2 other major sports brands. Also the bucks rev is going to go up 30% in the next 2 years which means player's salaries are going to jump 15% in 2 years.
Bottom line is Milwaukee downtown will become a dump with no possibility of development if the bucks leave. You will not get major Rev generating concerts etc. The bradley center will start losing 10-15 million per year when you factor Renovations, Cost and Revenues.
So for 200 million you keep a company that generates 200 million in Rev and has 100 million in salary and will also get 15-20 other major events each year using the stadium. That alone pays for it self and you are not losing 15 million at the Bradley center. And that is if no redevelopment happens any redevelopment would be gravy on the top. Name me one city that would not jump at the chance to have a NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL team move to them if they only had to come up with 40% of the stadium cost?
don't look at it as a cost for them to stay what would you pay for a team to come? Most cities pay 100% MKE is only having to pay 40%.
I'm trying to be honest. I don't have all of the answers. I don't bring up counterpoints to be annoying. I bring them up because I think they get missed or buried when people say: "Oh, but it's good for the community!"
You want my hot sports take? Fine.
This is my visceral reaction to this whole thing:
The Bucks can f-ing leave. Bye.
The NBA business model apparently requires that the public give them A LOT of money just so they will do business here. We can call it an "investment", but the reality is, it's a f-ing gift. It's not even corporate welfare. It's just a gift. Here. Take this. Please stay.
If the Bucks need more money, raise ticket prices.
Furthermore, if this "investment opportunity" was so great, there would be investors lining up to get in on it. We wouldn't need state money. Hasn't really happened. Why? Because it's a losing proposition. There are numerous studies out there that illustrate that public funded arenas rarely (if ever) make the economic impact that politicians and everybody claims. Is Milwaukee the magical market that's going to make it work? Not likely.
If the goal is a healthy and vibrant downtown community, then we have to look at all of the tactics. AND, we need to be prepared to take a hit for the long-term good. Let them walk. It'll hurt. But, we'll be better in the long run. We can't fall in love with a specific tactic, and miss the big picture. Bad idea.
For the record, I live, work and pay income and property taxes in Milwaukee.
AND
GET OFF MY LAWN.
So if the Bucks aren't here, there isn't any possibility these projects are less valuable or worse not done?
Don't discount the physiological impact that a major negative like the Bucks leaving subconsciously decreasing the interest in doing these types of projects or of residents moving into the area.
Lastly, I've said it before, like 27 pages ago, but the amount of corporate inter-connectivity that goes on with the Bucks as a central cog of fundraising and community engagement is significant. Companies like Harley, Associated Bank, JCI, Rockwell Automation, NML...they are all incestuous with the fundraising...pull the Bucks out and some of that non-accounted for funding for the city goes away.
A perfect example of the narrow-minded and ignorant thinking that permeates much* of metro Milwaukee.
This post seems to lack a fundamental understanding of how business works in the 21st Century. "Corporate welfare." As if that's a bad thing? Corporations are the lifeblood cities and states. Cities and States are in competition with one another to land businesses. Why? Duh. Jobs and tax revenues. Yet then we have some who want to paint corporations/business as the enemy?? We have people who complain about wages and the outsourcing of jobs overseas? Yea, it sure would be nice if America were the only country in the world and we weren't living in a global economy where competition didn't exist. But guess what? That isn't the case.
Sports are BIG BUSINESS, and as a result, progressive cities/states without professional sports teams ARE WILLING TO FUND UPWARDS OF 80-90% OF ARENA COSTS TO RECRUIT SPORTS TEAMS TO THEIR CITIES. Why? They view sports teams as an asset to their community, adding another amenity, jobs, a source of civic pride when team is good, keeping their name in the news. Wonder if MKE's trolley car project will make mention on ESPN 82 nights per year, or ever assemble 20,000 people in downtown Milwaukee 41 nights per year to ride that amazing trolley?
Point is tax dollars get spent on incredibly DUMB things frequently, yet when you have an opportunity to retain an asset as a city, that absolutely generates jobs, income tax dollars, sales tax dollars at a high rate - you don't let it walk to another city that has a shred of common sense and vision.
Is Seattle worse off? No. But Seattle is not the best example because they are nothing like Milwaukee. Seattle has arguably the most educated city in the US (we can all agree Milwaukee is not in that ballpark), they have multiple billionaires, major corporations and 4 other professional sports teams there. So yes, without the Sonics Seattle has not fallen off much at all economically because they have too many smart people to let it fall off. But even with all that said, they are still desperate to get a team back, so much so that an ownership group was willing to spend over a billion dollars to get the Clippers and move them up there. That billion was just to buy the team, not including a new arena and redevelopment of a stadium district. If they do not add significant value why would Seattle be that desperate to get a team back in Seattle? Why would billionaires who have made a ton of money by not making stupid monetary moves be so desperate? You can try and quantify and argue over if they come out in the red or black on a deal, but at the end of the day the true value of the team cannot be measured it is much more qualitative. This is especially true in the case of a city like Milwaukee. Milwaukee finally seems to be getting some momentum behind it with a number of extraordinary restaurants and redevelopment happening and people for the first time in a long time are starting to show some pride in being from Milwaukee. People from outside Milwaukee are starting to take notice of that as well as many article have been written about the city in major publications throughout the country. The loss of the Bucks changes that. Outside perception goes back to, yeah, it is Milwaukee of course they would not be able to keep their team, that place is an iron belt ****hole of a town. The redevelopment momentum would almost certainly come to a halt* and Milwaukee has a completely different feel. Yes, Milwaukee would eventually recover from it and the city will not disappear, but it also never reaches its full potential.
*edit - come to a halt is probably a bit strong, but there would be a significant loss of momentum for the city.
Is Seattle worse off? No. But Seattle is not the best example because they are nothing like Milwaukee. Seattle has arguably the most educated city in the US (we can all agree Milwaukee is not in that ballpark), they have multiple billionaires, major corporations and 4 other professional sports teams there. So yes, without the Sonics Seattle has not fallen off much at all economically because they have too many smart people to let it fall off. But even with all that said, they are still desperate to get a team back, so much so that an ownership group was willing to spend over a billion dollars to get the Clippers and move them up there. That billion was just to buy the team, not including a new arena and redevelopment of a stadium district. If they do not add significant value why would Seattle be that desperate to get a team back in Seattle? Why would billionaires who have made a ton of money by not making stupid monetary moves be so desperate? You can try and quantify and argue over if they come out in the red or black on a deal, but at the end of the day the true value of the team cannot be measured it is much more qualitative. This is especially true in the case of a city like Milwaukee. Milwaukee finally seems to be getting some momentum behind it with a number of extraordinary restaurants and redevelopment happening and people for the first time in a long time are starting to show some pride in being from Milwaukee. People from outside Milwaukee are starting to take notice of that as well as many article have been written about the city in major publications throughout the country. The loss of the Bucks changes that. Outside perception goes back to, yeah, it is Milwaukee of course they would not be able to keep their team, that place is an iron belt ****hole of a town. The redevelopment momentum would almost certainly come to a halt* and Milwaukee has a completely different feel. Yes, Milwaukee would eventually recover from it and the city will not disappear, but it also never reaches its full potential.
*edit - come to a halt is probably a bit strong, but there would be a significant loss of momentum for the city.
I think you are way overstating the downside scenario.
And you are grossly understating the downside
Please also answer my question of why billionaires and a city as successful economically as Seattle has been without the Sonics be going to such great lengths to get another NBA team?
You are comparing apples to oranges. I bet 99% of the population doesn’t know that Assurant is in Milwaukee. It’s never been an economic thing for me. It’s a quality of life and pride thing and losing the Bucks would be a large intangible loss for the city. In the narrow view in terms of only economics you and Canned Goods have a point, but it is much more than that.
Because they want one. Just like I want the Bucks. Sure they will use the same list of reasons that you use, but that's just window dressing.
Got it, so they are spending a billion dollars just to get a team because they want one. They did not do any research of risks/returns (both qualitative and quantitative) and decide that the returns outweigh the risks and that it would be a good investment. Makes perfect sense....
And you are grossly understating the downside
Please also answer my question of why billionaires and a city as successful economically as Seattle has been without the Sonics be going to such great lengths to get another NBA team?
Disagree that they are apples and oranges. Different kind of apples, sure. They are both for-profit businesses that have a certain value to Milwaukee. Yes, one is heavy in "social pride" value, the other has 20x times the economic value. Yet one of them gets all the attention, because, holy crap, those guys can dribble a basketball and go .500 (and usually worse) and we need to save our city's image!Topper,
The other is a 1 day story, ho hum, we lost a multi-billion dollar business and 1200 very solid jobs. No bailout, the market is doing what the market does.
I would argue that both entities should play under the same rules. If the Bucks want to be more profitable, there's nothing stopping them from doing it themselves, nor nothing stopping them from failing, as they've been doing for about 14 seasons.
Topper,
The distinction you use between economic value and civic pride value is huge. Pretty sure ½ million people aren’t coming in to watch employees of Assurant work. Civic pride is an intangible that is difficult to measure. Milwaukee has an inferiority complex as it is. Getting a team to come to Milwaukee would be nearly impossible; it would be much easier to keep the one we have.
The Bucks have and will do their share of winning, that shouldn’t matter. What matters is should we invest in something that gives identity and pride to the city and state? I am for investing in the arts, parks, clean streets, all that stuff as well. Those are the things that make a city livable as is having a NBA team. I am not saying that Milwaukee would go to hell in a hand basket if it lost the Bucks, but it would be a hit. Think outside only economic reasons.
Who here ever gave OKC a thought outside of the actions of Timothy McVeigh before the Thunder?
Now who here actually realized OKC exists because of the Thunder?
Who here ever gave OKC a thought outside of the actions of Timothy McVeigh before the Thunder?
Now who here actually realized OKC exists because of the Thunder?
Who here ever gave OKC a thought outside of the actions of Timothy McVeigh before the Thunder?
Now who here actually realized OKC exists because of the Thunder?
Who here ever gave OKC a thought outside of the actions of Timothy McVeigh before the Thunder?
Now who here actually realized OKC exists because of the Thunder?
I never think of San Diego because they lost a NBA team. Or Kansas City. Or Cincinnati. Or Baltimore. Or Seattle. Or Vancouver. Etc etc
Charlie Sykes reported yesterday that Mayor Barrett is now floating the idea of a sales tax in Milwaukee, which would destroy any new momentum this project has if he's really serious about it.
Cause Charlie Sykes doesn't have reason to throw a monkey wrench in this whole thing.
Having said that, if Barrett really did propose that he's a bigger a$$hat than I realized.
Superbar.
1. Report to moderator
2. Its a thread about the arena that Marquette might call home. On topic.
It's not the Mayor who came up with the sales tax idea ..
http://fox6now.com/2015/04/16/alderman-bob-bauman-comes-up-with-plan-to-fund-milwaukee-bucks-arena-and-it-involves-sales-tax/
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/ccCouncil/2015-PDF/NewsReleases/District04/04-0501-arenatax_attachment.pdf
Was reading a different article today .. noticed that just 7 months ago, the JS reported that the Bradley Center needed $25-35m in maintenance .. Gosh, I wonder where that $100m figure came from?Don Walker on the radio, uses the $100m figure over time.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/bmo-harris-bradley-center-needs-up-to-35-million-in-maintenance-b99364381z1-278141721.html
Was reading a different article today .. noticed that just 7 months ago, the JS reported that the Bradley Center needed $25-35m in maintenance .. Gosh, I wonder where that $100m figure came from?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/bmo-harris-bradley-center-needs-up-to-35-million-in-maintenance-b99364381z1-278141721.html
Was reading a different article today .. noticed that just 7 months ago, the JS reported that the Bradley Center needed $25-35m in maintenance .. Gosh, I wonder where that $100m figure came from?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/bmo-harris-bradley-center-needs-up-to-35-million-in-maintenance-b99364381z1-278141721.html
I'm still skeptical this gets built. I've tried to stay optimistic, but it seems like it's one roadblock after another. Afraid this project gets derailed.
But hey Milwaukee, at least you get to keep that great looking weed patch.
As long as everyone understands there's a boatload of reasons the $25m, $35m and $100m figures are very likely preposterously inflated, we're good.
Step into 2019. The Bucks are gone. There is zero chance any significant maintenance occurs, beyond buying duct tape to keep the boilers running.
Milwaukee can't scare up a few bucks to fix their parks (that *actually* need $100m in maintenance,) let alone fix a sports arena that has two tenants and get used 60 days a year.
No.
"Just think of the (tax) money you'll lose" is the rallying cry for every business who wants a hand-out and threaten to leave.
Milwaukee will get over the Bucks in the blink of an eye, compared to how it'll get over losing Assurant and their -1200 jobs.
No.
"Just think of the (tax) money you'll lose" is the rallying cry for every business who wants a hand-out and threaten to leave.
Milwaukee will get over the Bucks in the blink of an eye, compared to how it'll get over losing Assurant and their -1200 jobs.
That's comparing apples to giant purple alien elephants. I get you hate the arena thing so there is no argument to be made that will win you over. I'll move along now.
Pass a 1% sales tax hike with half the funds going to arts, parks, museums and schools. I'll get on board. Oh, but we can't do that.
I don't understand the vehement opposition to any sales tax increase.
I don't understand the vehement opposition to any sales tax increase. When you look at major metro areas, Milwaukee's 5.6% is in the bottom third. Even raising it to 6.6% would keep it lower than most comparable cities.
I live in the city and have zero problem with it. Especially if it can ease some of the property tax burden.
Too bad for you, it's really not. They are both Milwaukee businesses that are failing to make the revenue they need to be competitive, but indeed are in different industries, and have different levels of social pride. Fuji apples to Gala apples. Naturally, those on the "other side" of this argument desperately want that comparison to not be apt because it undercuts the big argument that spending public dollars on this is an economic priority that adds up.
I do not hate the idea of a new arena. I could even spend public funds on it, right after we fix about 200 other bigger, yet non-sexy problems in Milwaukee that need public funding. Unfortunately, those get zero debate while pols run around with their hair on fire because we want to keep a relatively small business afloat.
Pass a 1% sales tax hike with half the funds going to arts, parks, museums and schools. I'll get on board. Oh, but we can't do that.
Can't look at it in a vacuum, question is what is the total tax burden, not just sales tax. Sales tax is low because other things like property taxes are relatively high.
I get that, which is why I mentioned it possibly easing the property tax burden if those areas are taken off the property tax levy.
The arena, arts, parks, museums and schools all contribute to the quality of life in the area. I still think a one percent increase is more than reasonable to preserve and improve them.
It's Milwaukee. People still bitch and moan about the Miller Park sales tax, and most of them probably go to the games anyway.
One of my favorite quotes:
"There are only two types of people who don't like Milwaukee: those who have never been there, and those who have never been anywhere else."
One of my favorite quotes:
"There are only two types of people who don't like Milwaukee: those who have never been there, and those who have never been anywhere else."
It's Milwaukee. People still bitch and moan about the Miller Park sales tax, and most of them probably go to the games anyway.
Unlike the Brewers, at least the Bucks are doing the logical thing and building downtown.
I'm all for building up downtown, but in the case of Miller Park, it's probably in the best spot. I (and countless others) could never imagine a Brewers game without tailgating...and where downtown would there have been enough surface parking?
If you truly are for building up downtown then you (and countless others) would have to get used to not tailgating and spending your money at downtown establishments near the stadium.Miller Park downtown would have been great. The people who tailgate would be offset by the people who would attend because it was downtown with good drinking and restaurants. Park the car and walk to an establishment before and after the game. Make a night of it and get a hotel and park the car and no driving.
If you truly are for building up downtown then you (and countless others) would have to get used to not tailgating and spending your money at downtown establishments near the stadium.
If you truly are for building up downtown then you (and countless others) would have to get used to not tailgating and spending your money at downtown establishments near the stadium.
This could have happened. And downtown would have benefited. Except .. attendance at Brewers games would be about a quarter less.
Milwaukee is a cheap town, and over the past couple decades, the Brewers were a sub-mediocre ball club. I'm comfortable guessing that the majority of folks in the stands are not there to see the glory that is baseball .. which is why they have security people kicking people IN TO the stadium after the 3rd inning, as so many are quite content drinking their 50 cent beers instead of $8 ones, locked in to a seat watching some painful game.
Miller Park downtown would have been great. The people who tailgate would be offset by the people who would attend because it was downtown with good drinking and restaurants. Park the car and walk to an establishment before and after the game. Make a night of it and get a hotel and park the car and no driving.
I think the real concern for Selig was easy access for the Waukesha/Oconomowoc/Brookfield people. Too bad, as I think a downtown stadium would draw more people for the overall experience, especially on weekends. On weeknights, I can see where the current location does better with people coming from the Waukesha area.
Who decides to go to a sporting event depending on the availability of bars and restaurants?
The number of decent places to eat and drink near the United Center approaches zero, yet I don't think the Bulls and the Blackhawks have much trouble selling tickets.
Have you seen the size of Wisconsinites? I doubt there's anything they do that isn't closely tied to food and booze.
Have you seen the size of Wisconsinites? I doubt there's anything they do that isn't closely tied to food and booze.We all know how you like cracking on Wisconsin and Wisconsinites, but Mens Health doesn't have Milwaukee in the top 15 fattest cities in fact Milwaukee is the 17th fittest city in America. Just saying.
Anyone else wish MU just had their own stadium? Something like Villanova. Play the smaller games at the Pavilion and then the big media games at the 76ers stadium (bucks for us).
Having been to the games down the stretch, it was a struggle to fill the lower bowl
Have you seen the size of Wisconsinites? I doubt there's anything they do that isn't closely tied to food and booze.
This could have happened. And downtown would have benefited. Except .. attendance at Brewers games would be about a quarter less.
Milwaukee is a cheap town, and over the past couple decades, the Brewers were a sub-mediocre ball club. I'm comfortable guessing that the majority of folks in the stands are not there to see the glory that is baseball .. which is why they have security people kicking people IN TO the stadium after the 3rd inning, as so many are quite content drinking their 50 cent beers instead of $8 ones, locked in to a seat watching some painful game.
Doubt it. Young people aren't exactly flocking to MLB games these days.But if it was downtown and part of the social scene....
Doubt it. Young people aren't exactly flocking to MLB games these days.
When's the last Brewers game you were at? It's filled with twenty somethings who spend more time walking the concourse than watching the game. Miller Park is a huge scene for young people.
In fact the Brewers reach 18-34 year old's at a higher rate than the Milwaukee market.
35% of their fans are 18-34, whereas 29% of the market is 18-34
That "quarter" of missing fans would have been more than made up by people, particularly young people, living downtown who would attend more games if the stadium was easy for them to get to.
Yeah, Miller Park is so hard to get to.
It's an express bus ride, or a 15-minute drive from anywhere in Milwaukee.
My bold assertion is that no one makes the decision to commit to a 3+ hour Brewers game based on the commute.
When I was a 20-something living downtown, my buddies and I definitely would have gone to a lot more Brewers games if we could have made a quick walk to the stadium as opposed to driving 15 minutes, paying to park, then trekking 15 more minutes across the parking lot to get into the stadium all while trying to decide who was stuck being the DD. We'd often decide to go to a Bucks or Admirals games after happy hour-ing but I don't recall ever making a last-minute decision to go to a Brewers game.
So, single 20-somethings living downtown who are baseball fans comprise, what, 1-2% of the Milwaukee area's population? Let's be generous and assume they go to 10 additional games a year because the stadium is downtown. My cyphering tells me that would increase attendance by less than 2,000 per game, and that is not taking into account suburbanites that would go to fewer games because of the hassle of coming downtown. If they attend 2-3 fewer games each, your increase would be wiped out.
you could walk to a bar and get a free ride to miller park from downtown. It's the easiest ball park to get to I've ever been too, and by far the most 20 somethings you are going to see (in the parking lot at least)
So, fewer suburbanites would go because of the commute despite your bold assertion that "no one makes the decision to commit to a 3+ hour Brewers game based on the commute."
We're clearly not going to agree on this and that's fine. The fact of the matter is that Miller Park is one of the very few "new" stadiums that is not in a downtown or densely populated area. You just don't see many stadiums built in huge open spaces that are "15 minutes from anywhere" and there's a reason for that.
When I was a 20-something living downtown, my buddies and I definitely would have gone to a lot more Brewers games if we could have made a quick walk to the stadium as opposed to driving 15 minutes, paying to park, then trekking 15 more minutes across the parking lot to get into the stadium all while trying to decide who was stuck being the DD. We'd often decide to go to a Bucks or Admirals games after happy hour-ing but I don't recall ever making a last-minute decision to go to a Brewers game.
The Vikings new stadium will be an interesting test case.
Anyone else have luck googling "Brewers demographics"...?
Be honest, is it the only stadium you've ever been to? ;)
This was all I got-
(http://www.theheckler.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-6-5DrunkFan.jpg)
what do the last few pages have to do with a new Bucks arena?
That first picture looks like it was taken at Wrigley.
Looks like taxpayers are about to be on the hook for about half of the stadium's cost.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/arena-negotiations-continue-no-deal-imminent-b99508223z1-305192861.html
"The Wisconsin Center District would add $93 million."
How does the Wisconsin Center District cover these bonds? Do they have a taxing authority on those who buy tickets to Center events?
Those bonds would be repaid using the three taxes the district levies in Milwaukee County: 3% on car rentals, 2.5% on hotel rooms and 0.5% on restaurant food and beverage sales.
"The Wisconsin Center District would add $93 million."
How does the Wisconsin Center District cover these bonds? Do they have a taxing authority on those who buy tickets to Center events?
Ah OK. So sales taxes paid by non-citizens in many cases. Does this mean that those taxes will increase?
Let's say "government entities" are on the hook for that much because I don't see a lot of downside risk for the average Wisconsin citizen.
"The state would be responsible for bonds worth more than $55 million.
That figure covers only the amount of the initial bonds, but not interest costs. The state would commit $4 million a year over 20 years, or $80 million total, to cover its shares of principal and interest costs."
So this is covered by the "jock tax" right? If the Bucks leave, this revenue leaves as well.
"The Wisconsin Center District would add $93 million."
How does the Wisconsin Center District cover these bonds? Do they have a taxing authority on those who buy tickets to Center events?
"The City of Milwaukee would spend $35 million on a new 1,240-vehicle parking structure and provide $12 million in tax incremental financing."
OK, this is purely on the City's taxpayers. (But the City will also reap the revenue from new development around the site.)
"In the most unusual feature of the deal, Milwaukee County would "certify" tens of millions of dollars in uncollected county debt. The county, in effect, would then count on the state to recover at least $4 million of that debt a year for 20 years, a total of $80 million that would then be funneled to the arena project."
I don't know what this means. Does this also get covered by the state's jock tax?
Do only NBA players pay the jock tax? Or is only the NBA portion of the jock tax being used? And are professional athletes who pay the jock tax not taxpayers?
Regardless, it's funding that otherwise would be going to the general fund that will a) either need to be replaced through another revenue stream or b) be paired with a corresponding funding cut, which would mean fewer services for state residents.
So, any way you paint it, taxpayers are paying.
WCD says all its operations are funded through operating revenues, but they do collect taxes (hotel, food and beverage, car rentals, etc.) to pay off bonds that led to its creation in the first place. So, again, taxpayers are footing the bill.
Assuming there is substantial new development which, we know from history, is far from a sure thing.
Not 100 percent sure, but it sounds like the county is owed money and will turn over to the state the right to collect that money. The state would then, rather than giving the money to the county, use it for stadium funding.
I'm not opposed to this deal - and as a MU fan living in Illinois, don't really care who foots the bill - but it's disingenuous to claim taxpayers aren't funding half of this. Whether that taxpayer is a jock, a visitor, or a resident, it's still tax money. And remember, these aren't "new" tax revenues. For every tax dollar funneled into this project is a tax dollar not going elsewhere, and that money then will either need to be replaced with another tax dollar or be matched with a corresponding reduction in service.
In looking at previous figures, the jock tax on NBA players is currently about $6.5M annually, with anticipated growth to $13M over time. I guess if you count the 20 year payment on state bonds and the county debt, that looks to be similar to the source of these payments.
Of course the $6.5M is currently being used now by the state, so it's not like it is "new" money.
And you are right, "taxpayers" are footing the bill. Just a lot of those taxpayers aren't residents.
Do only NBA players pay the jock tax? Or is only the NBA portion of the jock tax being used? And are professional athletes who pay the jock tax not taxpayers?
Regardless, it's funding that otherwise would be going to the general fund that will a) either need to be replaced through another revenue stream or b) be paired with a corresponding funding cut, which would mean fewer services for state residents.
So, any way you paint it, taxpayers are paying.
What replaces this tax revenue when the Bucks leave?
Nothing.
So it's no loss either way. Or, more appropriately, a loss either way.
If the Bucks stay, any jock tax their presence generates goes to the stadium, not state coffers.
If the Bucks leave, there's no need for a stadium.
But the reality is, this is money currently going into the general fund. Under either scenario, that money will be disappearing and either needs to be replaced or spending will have to be correspondingly reduced.
Again, as an Illinois resident, I don't really care who pays for the stadium, and I want it built. But it would be wrong to suggest there's no impact on the taxpayers here. The truth is, taxpayers - directly and indirectly - are paying for half of it.
The white elephant is 100% on the taxpayers whether there is a new arena or not (Bradley Center). In fact, the taxpayers could,claim four white elephants in that district. It is a total taxpayer hose job if the arena doesn't get done. And absolutely no upside potential. All costs, all risks.
If the new arena is built, it is shared public and private, with a lot of upside potential. Risk and reward more balanced.
That said, the ideal package for the taxpayers and Bucks was to knock down the JS building, Arena, BC and Theater, and put in the new arena and expand the convention center space to make it viable. Three taxpayers white elephants knocked down and off the public subsidy payroll, and the fourth expanded to take on major conventions so it is revenue positive with increased utilization. And leaving a lot more empty space for private development north of the BC.
Instead, Milwaukee again settles for the path of least resistance...and not without a struggle of stupidity to even get to that option. One must balance the cost of subsidy and underutilization with the potential investment. It really isn't close...but Milwaukee is afraid of the future.
The white elephant is 100% on the taxpayers whether there is a new arena or not (Bradley Center). In fact, the taxpayers could,claim four white elephants in that district. It is a total taxpayer hose job if the arena doesn't get done. And absolutely no upside potential. All costs, all risks.
If the new arena is built, it is shared public and private, with a lot of upside potential. Risk and reward more balanced.
That said, the ideal package for the taxpayers and Bucks was to knock down the JS building, Arena, BC and Theater, and put in the new arena and expand the convention center space to make it viable. Three taxpayers white elephants knocked down and off the public subsidy payroll, and the fourth expanded to take on major conventions so it is revenue positive with increased utilization. And leaving a lot more empty space for private development north of the BC.
Instead, Milwaukee again settles for the path of least resistance...and not without a struggle of stupidity to even get to that option. One must balance the cost of subsidy and underutilization with the potential investment. It really isn't close...but Milwaukee is afraid of the future.
I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this. If the Bucks leave, that's $6.5m of taxes that the state will no longer receive, it's not as simple as "there's no need for a stadium." On top of that, if they leave and a new stadium is not built, the state (I believe ... this has been talked about at length) is on the hook for something like $100m over the next 10 years to keep the BC running.
You misunderstand.But, many of those taxpayers will not be residents ....
Yes, if the Bucks leave, the state loses the portion of jock tax revenues their presence generates.
But under this deal, that money - or at least the majority of it - goes to funding the stadium. So the net loss isn't the $6.5 million you think it is.
And yes, the state would be on the hook for BC costs, but some of those costs they'll be on the hook for regardless (i.e. debt service) and that also doesn't account for revenues.
Again, I'm not sure what the controversy here is. I'm not saying this is a bad deal or that you or anyone else should oppose it. But it's inaccurate to argue that taxpayers aren't carrying a large share of the costs here, because they are.
But, many of those taxpayers will not be residents ....
Here is how I see it:
State of Wisconsin residents will be responsible for covering the redirected jock taxes, but since those would go away without a new arena, they will be covering them anyway. They would also be responsible for anytime they eat out, rent a car or stay in a hotel room in Milwaukee County. The former is the most likely, but is a fairly small amount.
City residents would be responsible for the parking garage and the cost of the TIF, but they would also capture the upside of any development in the area. In the long run, they could come out ahead actually.
Jocks who play in Milwaukee are just seeing their income taxes to Wisconsin redirected. It doesn't substantially affect them either way. (Unless the Bucks move to a state with a lower tax rate.)
Am I missing something?
Milwaukee County residents are giving up $80 million.
OK, I still don't quite understand the county's contribution. Are they simply giving up on $80 million in uncollected debt to the state, and the state is going to collect that debt and use it for this project? So what kind of debt is this?
That's my understanding.
Though it appears that if the state is unable to collect that $80 million, the state will deduct the difference from the amount of tax revenue it shares with the county.
In other words, if the state can collect only half that $80 million, it will reduce by $40 million the amount of money it gives the county.
OK, and this is a transaction that is legal for the County Executive to undertake without having to involve the County Board right? Or at least that's the presumption?
Watch the County Board file a lawsuit, but my guess is that if it is in the state budget, such a lawsuit will have no standing.
Looks like taxpayers are about to be on the hook for about half of the stadium's cost.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/arena-negotiations-continue-no-deal-imminent-b99508223z1-305192861.html
Milwaukee, Milwaukee County and even the state have not had to really contribute to any arena project since the Milwaukee Arena was built in 1950? The Bradley Center and Kohl Center were basically gifts, so time to pony up people and continue to be a major league state/
Someone on here didn't believe me when a few months ago I suggested that the true cost to taxpayers could be $400 million with interest payments factored in. Dan Bice's new article further discusses that:
Interest could push public cost of new Bucks arena over $400 million
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/interest-could-push-public-cost-of-new-bucks-arena-over-400-million-b99510427z1-305636241.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/interest-could-push-public-cost-of-new-bucks-arena-over-400-million-b99510427z1-305636241.html)
It's misleading to say how future interest payments would increase the total amount in 10-30 years without also considering inflation in a present value calculation.
This is correct....Bice is picking and choosing what accounting practices he wants to follow when generating numbers to make his story more juicy....typical yellow journalism from a local paper
Right now, there are basically two sides to this.
1) Anti-Arena: Inflate the costs, ignore the jock tax, downplay potential benefits, make it seem like the state is paying the full bill and there will be no tangible benefit. This also includes the anti-Marquette crowd that asserts we are basically getting something for nothing (ignoring the roughly 500K in rent we'll pay annually).
2) Pro-Arena: Stick to current cost projections, constantly remind people of tax benefits, (likely) overstate how the project will revitalize downtown, remind us of $100M in needed renovations (likely inflated) at the BC.
The reality is somewhere in between. Yes, costs go up as time goes on. But so too will the taxes go up (jock tax currently would be about $130M over 20 years, but with 2-3 salary cap hikes likely will probably be closer to $200-250M). Will this revitalize downtown? No one knows. Almost certainly not to the level the arena supporters cite, but it's not like this will be a building dropped in a wasteland. All we know is this will give downtown more of a chance at revitalization than not doing it.
I prefer to look at what we know. We know that losing the Bucks will lose $6.5M annually in jock tax without factoring in salary cap increases. We know that the state will be on the hook for Bradley Center maintenance (however much it is). And we know that since the Park East Cooridor was torn down in 2003, there has been virtually no development in that area.
If people have better solutions to how to address those known issues, I'm all for listening. I highly doubt anyone will be able to get a plan in place, ready to go before the end of 2017. If so, more power to them.
Interesting reading ..
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/05/29/murphys-law-arena-plan-is-massive-tax-shift-to-milwaukee/
Adding to the "Pro-arena" side, I think another benefit that is overlooked is the intangible benefits that an NBA team brings to the city. I don't mean civic pride or anything like that. I mean things like this
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2008/09/15/focus1.html
The article states how the NBA is an increasingly global game, especially in China. Milwaukee business owners were very happy that the Bucks drafted Yi Jianlian (must not have been true Bucks fans, aint'a'?) because it gave Milwaukee instant household name-recognition in China. To be sure, I'm not saying this is a world-beating effect or anything, but I also don't think it's all that trivial either.
WISCTV News 3 @WISCTV_News3 · 36m36 minutes ago
Sources: Bucks arena deal to be announced Thursday #news3 http://www.channel3000.com/news/Sources-Bucks-arena-deal-to-be-announced-Thursday/33387470 …
I'm curious what this means. Isn't the plan already announced? Is this the financing plan?
Nothing is official, the previous articles were just reporting the preliminary status based on leaks from the meetings.
So lets say the arena is approved and everything is good to go. What season would MU start to play there? I keep reading that if the stadium isn't up by 2017 the Bucks move. Does that mean MU will be playing there in 2016-2017 or 2017-2018?
2017-18, if they can begin construction this fall.
It's a 3 year building process. So figure play begins with the 2018-19 season. NBA will extend their timeline. There is no movement with te franchise. All criteria will be met in good faith.
2 years is usually enough for a NBA stadium, but you are correct, with the Park East site this will easily go to three years.
Are there environmental issues that need to be addressed with the site? I always figured that was the reason real estate investors seemed to avoid it like the plaugue.
I'm not 100% sure on the numbers, but the soil supposedly needs something like $3 million dollars in cleanup before construction can start. With the arena taking on this cost at park east, the area where the BC currently sits becomes a potentially interesting investment opportunity for anyone who was scared off by the cleanup requirements in park east.
"Cheaper to keep them" may be accurate, but it isn't the most inspiring slogan ever. Regardless, nice to see the state and city moving forward.
So right and so wrong in many ways. Tacky, yet effective. This is Milwaukee, so the word "cheaper" reverberates with many....
So right and so wrong in many ways. Tacky, yet effective. This is Milwaukee, so the word "cheaper" reverberates with many....
Are there environmental issues that need to be addressed with the site? I always figured that was the reason real estate investors seemed to avoid it like the plaugue.
It has been mentioned that there are soil issues, but I think that isn't for sure.
It has been mentioned that there are soil issues, but I think that isn't for sure.
The new arena site is not on the Park East land...it's between the Park East and the Bradley Center. The Park East land is where most of the $500 million of ancillary development (residential, office, hotel, retail, Bucks' practice facility) is being talked about. The soil shouldn't be a factor for the construction of the arena itself.
The new arena site is not on the Park East land...it's between the Park East and the Bradley Center. The Park East land is where most of the $500 million of ancillary development (residential, office, hotel, retail, Bucks' practice facility) is being talked about. The soil shouldn't be a factor for the construction of the arena itself.
Gotcha. My mistake.
Are there environmental issues that need to be addressed with the site? I always figured that was the reason real estate investors seemed to avoid it like the plaugue.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/306803471.html (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/306803471.html)
Anything that puts Gimbel out on his ass, is a plan I can definitely support ;D
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/306803471.html (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/306803471.html)
Anything that puts Gimbel out on his ass, is a plan I can definitely support ;D
I was once in a meeting with Gimbel, Cords and I...
Wow! Now Chicos is name dropping himself in the first person.
He doesn't name drop. He "adds context". LOL
Fitzgerald says the Bucks arena vote will likely be debated separately.
This is not good, since if it were buried in the budget, the republicans could have some cover if they voted yes.
I hope Milwaukee doesn't blow this opportunity.
I think it gives Milwaukee area Democrats reasons to vote for it. Originally I thought it would be a death knell if it was outside the budget, but like MUfan12, I think it may end up being a positive.This absolutely is a positive and will get passed in this fashion.
Might be 20-80 against.
Sorry, I don't live in Wisco and haven't been following it as closely as others. When is the vote and when will we know if it's going to be built or not? It seems like it's been in limbo forever.
Thanks
some one at work heard Gary Ellerson on the radio today reporting he heard Jay Bilas (bullcrape) report that the Bucks will trade up to grab Kaminski in order to insure the arena bill passing LOL
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I've heard the exact opposite analysis.If your 20% with this as a separate item, then it was 0% chance of passing in the budget.
Bottom line .. a huge chunk of legislators, D or R who do not live within 100 miles of MKE are against spending money on a Milwaukee project like a new Buck's stadium.
Just look at the push-back on completing the Zoo Interchange project.
Might be 20-80 against.
If your 20% with this as a separate item, then it was 0% chance of passing in the budget.
Walker scrambling for votes-----from democrats. This is not going to be easy.
This is not good. I think they are gonna blow it. Ridiculous. So much harder as a separate bill.You will not nned roads to Milwaukee, if the Bucks leave town.
Madison— Hours before Wisconsin's budget is set to expire, state Senate Republicans have agreed among themselves to seek to take public financing for a Milwaukee Bucks arena out of the bill and to cut $800 million in bonding for roads while avoiding immediate delays in the massive Zoo Interchange project, according to Republicans in that house.
Can Marquette leave the state too? This is going to have a large negative impact on both our university and our basketball program.I think it will have a negative impact on MU, but it is hard to say how much. It will have even an even bigger impact, if they go ahead and raze the BMO Harris Center, which would send MU back to US Cellular Arena as second fiddle to UWM.
You will not nned roads to Milwaukee, if the Bucks leave town.
I also believe the politicians are going to blow this one.
People need to relax.......
Ted Davis @nbated 4h4 hours ago
In 27yrs in NBA it ALWAYS goes like this for new arena. Looks bad, gets worse and finally seems impossible until.......it's done!
Ted Davis @nbated 2h2 hours ago
Bucks played in Hou the night the referendum to build Toyota Ctr failed. Employees were saying, "Hello N.O. Rockets" They are still in Hou.
Huge difference between Houston and Milwaukee. One is a large thriving market...the other is a struggling rust belt town. The NBA will not lose any sleep if the Bucks move to Seattle.
Can Marquette leave the state too? This is going to have a large negative impact on both our university and our basketball program.
Can Marquette leave the state too? This is going to have a large negative impact on both our university and our basketball program.I want the new arena built, but I ultimately see this as about even either way for MU. MU gains plenty of advantages by having the Bucks here, but if they leave I think we'll get an increase in attendance from casual fans looking for local basketball, we'll be more of a priority for local media, and we'll have the BC to ourselves with better availability for home games and the ability to customize it.
I want the new arena built, but I ultimately see this as about even either way for MU. MU gains plenty of advantages by having the Bucks here, but if they leave I think we'll get an increase in attendance from casual fans looking for local basketball, we'll be more of a priority for local media, and we'll have the BC to ourselves with better availability for home games and the ability to customize it.
If I am a resident of Wisconsin, far from Milwaukee, I would have no problem with my rep voting for this, since it's an investment into a business that can increase cash flow into the state treasury, with a guarantee from billionaires.
Nearly that same thing could be said of dozens of big businesses.
Hey, if Wisconsin could just build a new $250m brewery for Miller-Coors, that'd be a great investment for the state. Think of all the jobs we'd save. Etc.
I want the new arena built, but I ultimately see this as about even either way for MU. MU gains plenty of advantages by having the Bucks here, but if they leave I think we'll get an increase in attendance from casual fans looking for local basketball, we'll be more of a priority for local media, and we'll have the BC to ourselves with better availability for home games and the ability to customize it.
Customize it? You are looking at an aging arena that needs work and Marquette and the Admirals are going to have to pay more if you want improvements. Remember that if the Bucks leave, there goes the athletic performance center also, there goes the development, there goes the jobs, there goes the pro sports entertainment options in Milwaukee from Octbober through early months...................
Lose, lose for Marquette, Milwaukee and Wisconsin.
How is it that places like Seattle, Louisville, Cincinnati, Kansas City, San Diego, etc, are able to get out of bed without pro sports entertainment options from October through early months......
That's laughable. UW will get that coverage, not MU. And the only way attendance goes up is if MU starts winning again.
Hmm...Seattle, Louisville, and perhaps Kansas City would all take the Bucks in a heartbeat...as for comparing winter in San Diego to Milwaukee...do we really need to explain the difference?
If the Bucks leave, no the world will not end. No, Milwaukee will not be bulldozed to the ground. But the argument for keeping the Bucks just makes financial sense. Assembly leader Robin Vos, a Republican, has stated as much. He said you cannot look at the financial numbers and not support it. Speaker Vos also says the people opposing this need to stop making this their own person "Jihad" against corporate welfare. And I am attributing the word "Jihad" to Vos, who said it on the Mike Heller radio show within the past few weeks.
Vos says the assembly has the votes to pass the stadium bill as is so this falls on the State Senate. You need 17 votes...all 4 Milwaukee area Senators need to vote yes...for sure Fitzgerald and Darling support it from the Republican side...find 11 more and this gets done.
I can mention many more cities if you wish. Sure, they would take them. They already have arenas built, etc. Maybe if the Bucks weren't in the bottom 5% in attendance most of the last 10 years, this would be an easier call.
If it makes so much financial sense, then it should be a slam dunk vote, easy math, easy decision, easy thing to explain to the voters. Thing is, it isn't a slam dunk. Just the way it is.
If they leave, they leave. If they stay, they stay. As you accurately point out, the world isn't ending either way.
How is it that places like Seattle, Louisville, Cincinnati, Kansas City, San Diego, etc, are able to get out of bed without pro sports entertainment options from October through early months......
If it is as critical as people want to make it, then it will happen. All that is happening right now is the typical panic mode stuff, people starting to freak out and that is when dumb decisions are made out of fear.
How long has it been since you've lived in Wisconsin? You may be reading about it, but unless you live here, you can't understand the political issues between Walker and the Democratic party right now.
There are issues other than the arena that are holding this back and egos and political parties need to be controlled a little for this to go through.
You know four of the five cities you named have NFL teams right... that's pro sports entertainment. Good try though.
Nor will I. Plenty of money in Milwaukee to get this done privately if it is the smart thing to do. Plenty. If not, then let them walk.
At the end of the day, I would be surprised if the Bucks leave. It will get worked out one way or another.
As a non Milwaukee resident you would have no problem if the Bucks left?
Got it........ ::)
Why should we care about your opinion? You have no skin in the game.
As a resident of SE Wisconsin, a tax payer and a Bucks/ MU fan I am glad to say that both of my elected reps support the plan.
I am happy to have a small portion of my tax dollars go to keeping a valuable asset in the state.
All I can say is why don't we raise funds to put a Kohl Center on campus? It's an arms race in terms of facilities with the Blue Blood Badgers, and this maybe will elevate us beyond the high school gym that is the Bradley Center
I don't subscribe to the gloom and doom if a sports team leaves, especially one that is trying to fleece the citizens when there are many other bigger fish to fry. I heard this same doom and gloom when the Raiders and Rams left. For 20 years, the city has somehow managed to stay erect. Seattle didn't implode, neither did Kansas City, San Diego, Cincinnati, Vancouver, Newark, Baltimore or any number of other cities that have lost NBA teams over the years.
I don't subscribe to the gloom and doom if a sports team leaves, especially one that is trying to fleece the citizens when there are many other bigger fish to fry. I heard this same doom and gloom when the Raiders and Rams left. For 20 years, the city has somehow managed to stay erect. Seattle didn't implode, neither did Kansas City, San Diego, Cincinnati, Vancouver, Newark, Baltimore or any number of other cities that have lost NBA teams over the years.
While it doesn't have to be an arena, Milwaukee does desperately need SOMETHING to go in that space. Since the Park East was torn down, the ghetto has pushed closer and closer to downtown. There is a huge project apartment around 8th and Highland as well as a ton of low-income rental units between McKinley and Walnut centered around 6th-8th Streets.
The less development we see downtown, the more these projects will impinge on downtown. The crime and poverty that used to be more limited to the north side is pushing in all directions, most notably north and west. Keep the void in downtown and you'll see that crime move south and east.
My biggest issue with the anti-arena crowd is that they have NO answer to what should go in that spot. Downtown has been withering for years. Attempts to revitalize Grand Avenue and the Convention Center have been inadequate and failed to increase traffic. All we're getting are condos, most of which start intended for buyers and end up going to renters years later.
I haven't heard one viable alternative to what should be done with downtown. Not what should be done with this money, or whether we should keep the Bucks, but another way to attract interest to the area and keep it a visible part of the city that Milwaukee wants to showcase as opposed to just another stretch of the north side ghetto expanding.
While it doesn't have to be an arena, Milwaukee does desperately need SOMETHING to go in that space. Since the Park East was torn down, the ghetto has pushed closer and closer to downtown. There is a huge project apartment around 8th and Highland as well as a ton of low-income rental units between McKinley and Walnut centered around 6th-8th Streets.
The less development we see downtown, the more these projects will impinge on downtown. The crime and poverty that used to be more limited to the north side is pushing in all directions, most notably north and west. Keep the void in downtown and you'll see that crime move south and east.
My biggest issue with the anti-arena crowd is that they have NO answer to what should go in that spot. Downtown has been withering for years. Attempts to revitalize Grand Avenue and the Convention Center have been inadequate and failed to increase traffic. All we're getting are condos, most of which start intended for buyers and end up going to renters years later.
I haven't heard one viable alternative to what should be done with downtown. Not what should be done with this money, or whether we should keep the Bucks, but another way to attract interest to the area and keep it a visible part of the city that Milwaukee wants to showcase as opposed to just another stretch of the north side ghetto expanding.
I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.
I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.
I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.
Not sure about erect, but many on your list have imploded and even exploded. Social fabric is a fine line.
Listen, even if the arena funding is all private, the government will have to spend the money on the surrounding infrastructure to support it (roads, utilities, labor, transportation, maintaining existing facilities like the BC, the cost of the empty land at the current site, etc.). If I am an elected official, I'd rather have skin in the game on arena ownership when the next generation of owners come along. It is prudent. This leaves an infusion of a boatload of New York capital from the current Bucks owners to spur investment around the arena, a major mistake of other arenas who were built on an urban island.
Where does the government want to spend their money? Do they want to own utility vaults, street lights, blacktop, street car rail, an empty Bradley Center, or do they want to own a public-private on-going revenue generating investment? Easy choice for me. Pick your poison.
I'd like to hear what Wisconsinites are willing to spend their precious tax dollars on. They all whine about what they DON'T want to invest in. Tell us what is worthy of your money.
End of the day, the local folks of Wisconsin and Milwaukee will have to decide what is important. If they don't feel this is paramount, then the repercussions will fall where they may.
You throw this list out time and again and those situations and Milwaukee can't be compared. Everyone of those cities except Vancouver and Newark(really? They haven't "imploded", do you even know what that word means?) has an NFL team, the number 1 entertainment ticket in town. They also all have at least two major sports franchises. Milwaukee, without the Bucks has is out on both counts. Yes the Packers are within reach for Milwaukee but so are the Bears from a geographical standpoint and we'd never say Milwaukee has two NFL teams. Plus the Packers don't bring tax revenue to Milwaukee, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't count.
You know what else most of those if not all those cities have going for them? Weather, the weather isn't as bad in the winter as it is in Milwaukee, take away a major entertainment option in the winter and Milwaukee looks a lot less appealing.
Also, at some point the NBA could surpass the NFL in popularity. Not saying it will, but there are an awful lot of issues swirling around the NFL and the NBA tv deal and ratings shows it's popularity is exploding. If that shift does happen, I'd sure as hell hope Milwaukee had one of those chips.
Lastly, just because the public has to spend dollars doesn't mean they are getting fleeced.....even the most pessimistic view would put the total public investment (after tax revenues generated, etc) at less than $100 million. Given the overall landscape (cities paying for facilities to get a team) there is no reason that we shouldn't invest.
And this is the exact problem. Not doing this cuts off a significant revenue stream, reduces jobs, and leaves a gaping hole in downtown.
Anyone not supporting this needs to counteract it with a proposal that addresses these issues, not just say "eh, we'll get over it, uh, somehow."
There is ZERO chance the NBA will ever be more popular than the NFL. By the way, take a look at the NFL TV deal. Awfully good for a 16 game season
I wouldn't be so sure of that. The new generation of parents doesn't have near the amount of loyalty to the NFL, especially with the new concussion reports coming out. It will take years, probably a full generation, but while the NFL is king now, it wasn't always that way, nor will it always be.
The NFL had the second highest television ratings in its history last year...next to 2010. The "new generation of parents" may not want their kids playing football, but they are still watching it.
And you concede that it "might take a full generation." Saying something might happen in 30 years isn't really a reason to invest in something like an arena right now. (And I do want the arena.)
Clearly that arguement isn't working or taking hold. You guys that want this thing need to do a better job convincing folks.
The voters aren't buying it. Maybe they don't believe the numbers, the claims, etc. Maybe it just leaves a stink in their craw that they are having to spend money for a bunch of millionaires for a place to play when there are bigger fish to fry in their opinions. Remember, about 30% of Americans give a damn about sports.
I agree the argument doesn't seem to be catching on, but the opponents also seem to have their fingers in their ears with their eyes closed repeating "no, no, no, no, no". I haven't seen anyone explain how the deal doesn't make sense financially for the state.
The NFL had the second highest television ratings in its history last year...next to 2010. The "new generation of parents" may not want their kids playing football, but they are still watching it.
And you concede that it "might take a full generation." Saying something might happen in 30 years isn't really a reason to invest in something like an arena right now. (And I do want the arena.)
I agree the argument doesn't seem to be catching on, but the opponents also seem to have their fingers in their ears with their eyes closed repeating "no, no, no, no, no". I haven't seen anyone explain how the deal doesn't make sense financially for the state.
It is a choice argument. Can that money be spent elsewhere, like on choo choo trains.
And that's part of the problem. A friend of mine recently pointed out that some of the UW-system schools have been spending tens and hundreds of millions in upgrades recently to their campuses, to try to put it in perspective. If we can spend (hypothetical numbers, don't remember his exacts) $50M at Stevens Point, $110M at Platteville, why can't we afford this?A very good point. Also the reality is the money gets paid back with a return. An actual investment. And if anything actually happens with the urban redevelopment it is gravy.
Now part of it is that the money for the schools is earmarked for that. However in this case, no, that money really CAN'T be spent otherwise, because you have to factor in how this plan will work. If you put X amount of dollars into something else that would have gone into the arena, that "something else" won't bring back $10+M in revenue annually from 2017-2037 that the Bucks will guaranteed bring back. So that's $200M that the state won't get.
Can you put the money elsewhere? No. Not with the return on investment that keeping the Bucks guarantees. You can debate the merits, the growth, and all the other pros and cons to keeping the team, but you can't just put the money elsewhere and call it an equal investment, because that's not reality.
And that's part of the problem. A friend of mine recently pointed out that some of the UW-system schools have been spending tens and hundreds of millions in upgrades recently to their campuses, to try to put it in perspective. If we can spend (hypothetical numbers, don't remember his exacts) $50M at Stevens Point, $110M at Platteville, why can't we afford this?
Now part of it is that the money for the schools is earmarked for that. However in this case, no, that money really CAN'T be spent otherwise, because you have to factor in how this plan will work. If you put X amount of dollars into something else that would have gone into the arena, that "something else" won't bring back $10+M in revenue annually from 2017-2037 that the Bucks will guaranteed bring back. So that's $200M that the state won't get.
Can you put the money elsewhere? No. Not with the return on investment that keeping the Bucks guarantees. You can debate the merits, the growth, and all the other pros and cons to keeping the team, but you can't just put the money elsewhere and call it an equal investment, because that's not reality.
I would suggest those that want this done get better messengers. Maybe that's why Barry and Bo are coming in, because the state loves the Emperor and the Grinch. Sign up Aaron Rodgers and it will win in a landslide.
Right now the message, or the messengers are not getting through. That's 90% of the battle. Politics 101
Milwaukee democrats from the Senate are now saying they will NOT vote yes
also, Carpenter is now asking for Marquette to pony up some cash. See below link
http://www.biztimes.com/article/20150707/ENEWSLETTERS02/150709885/-1/daily_enews
I hope this doesn't get messed up by these politicians from both sides of the aisle. Would be such a shame to a city that is good, getting better and can be great again.
I don't think Marquette should be paying, but I am sympathetic to Carpenter's POV. From the article:
"But Carpenter has been critical of the proposed arena deal. He said Republicans should hold public hearings in Milwaukee on the arena financing plan. Democrats have been shut out of negotiations on the arena deal and Carpenter said that Republicans have not reached out to him to get his support.
“They don’t include other people (in the negotiations), how can they expect to get their votes?” Carpenter said."
There were two major Democrats in the meetings. Barrett and Abele.
I don't think Marquette should be paying, but I am sympathetic to Carpenter's POV. From the article:
"But Carpenter has been critical of the proposed arena deal. He said Republicans should hold public hearings in Milwaukee on the arena financing plan. Democrats have been shut out of negotiations on the arena deal and Carpenter said that Republicans have not reached out to him to get his support.
“They don’t include other people (in the negotiations), how can they expect to get their votes?” Carpenter said."
hey, seattle should be last in line as they already had their chance even though i understand it's all about who wants them the most
There were two major Democrats in the meetings. Barrett and Abele.
I think 03eng is correct. My belief is that Milwaukee Democrats are attempting to get something (anything) out of the deal. And remember that this can work both ways. Leadership can remind reluctant upstate Republicans of that as the horse trading continues. Political sausage making at its best. This gets done by a couple votes, including some democratic ones. It looks to me to be a much easier deal than Miller Park was back in the day.
seattle and vegas are licking their chops
hey, seattle should be last in line as they already had their chance even though i understand it's all about who wants them the most
how about this-the las vegas $$BUCKS$$ get it? BUCKS? now that is pretty good right there heyna??
I hope you are correct, but not so sure yet. The Gov. and Republican leadership need to do the sausage making pretty soon. It would put Walker in a bad light for his presidential run if he can't even push through legislation in his own state.
Curious what others think, but .. I'd imagine Walker isn't exactly a beloved guy if you asked a bunch of Republican legislators. What I mean is that .. if you were an out-state Republican and he came to you and said "hey, I know you're completely against this, but I'm running for president and I want you to switch your vote because I'm awesome and the country needs me." .. I don't think that would be persuasive. "Really? I should go against my principals/constituents just for you personally?"
There are members of the Republican party that are irritated with Walker. There are numerous parts of this budget proposal a number aren't comfortable with and know that much of it is about him running for President. However, he is powerful and has access to resources that could help them. Those who are sitting on the fence will be persuaded if he asks them personally for their support.
Curious what others think, but .. I'd imagine Walker isn't exactly a beloved guy if you asked a bunch of Republican legislators. What I mean is that .. if you were an out-state Republican and he came to you and said "hey, I know you're completely against this, but I'm running for president and I want you to switch your vote because I'm awesome and the country needs me." .. I don't think that would be persuasive. "Really? I should go against my principals/constituents just for you personally?"
Exactly. Walker's got a reasonable shot to be the next President. That's power both from the carrot and stick perspective. Look, even Chris Abele might like to go to Washington.And as likely, we'll never really hear what the
That's why I'm actually confident. Walker wants the bump. The timing of this is perfect. Arena deal, Presidential announcement, first debate all within 3 weeks. Like I said, Ed Goeas is a pro's pro. And we'll never really hear what the gov had to give to get this done. But that's what the conversations are all about this week.
I'm confused as to how a new Bucks stadium is spun to be a helpful issue for a Walker presidency. Aren't Republicans against public borrowing and spending?The State was able to keep the Bucks by spending 80M plus some interest, and keep 250 Million or more in revenue over the next 20 or so years. He looks like a business man making a good deal for the state, keeping the Bucks and making money for the State. Plus other revenue that will be generated by surrounding development, sales taxes, etc.
If he's on the campaign stump in Iowa and says "hey, look at me, I was able to pull together a deal to spend $250m of taxpayer money for a basketball arena in our big city" .. that's something Iowa R's are swayed by?
I would think the opposite. Parties may be owned by big business and desirous of corporate welfare .. but conservative voters?
I'm confused as to how a new Bucks stadium is spun to be a helpful issue for a Walker presidency. Aren't Republicans against public borrowing and spending?
Cut education spending and direct the money back to millionaires - that is the ideal republican play.
I've lost track of all this but is the jock tax still a big part of how they plan on financing this thing? If so, the whole concept seems to be taking a number of licks lately and might not be around for very long.
http://www.atlredline.com/the-end-of-jock-taxes-is-near-1716476501
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the courts to strike down income taxes assessed against professional athletes.Even so, then the players on the Bucks will end up paying full taxes to WI. So, I don't think it would have a big effect on revenues.
If those Democratic billionaire Bucks owners cared about the children they wouldn't take the money and if Herb Kohl cared more about children, he would kick in $150 million instead of $100 million.
The above statement is as pointless as yours.
I was answering a specific question as to how getting an arena deal would help Walker. What does an ex-Bucks owner have to do with that?I am not sure how much it will help. However, on the flip side not getting a new arena and losing the Bucks will be a big negative in his campaign.
Try to keep up with the conversation.
I was answering a specific question as to how getting an arena deal would help Walker. What does an ex-Bucks owner have to do with that?
Try to keep up with the conversation.
I've lost track of all this but is the jock tax still a big part of how they plan on financing this thing? If so, the whole concept seems to be taking a number of licks lately and might not be around for very long.
http://www.atlredline.com/the-end-of-jock-taxes-is-near-1716476501
Your partisan education funding talking point derailed it.
You turned funding for a pet issue unrelated to the arena and turned it into a pointless political slam so I turned it right back. Money is fungible. Money spent on Badgercare isn't spending on education. Money for the DMV isn't spending on education, etc.
Even so, then the players on the Bucks will end up paying full taxes to WI. So, I don't think it would have a big effect on revenues.
I'm confused as to how a new Bucks stadium is spun to be a helpful issue for a Walker presidency. Aren't Republicans against public borrowing and spending?
If he's on the campaign stump in Iowa and says "hey, look at me, I was able to pull together a deal to spend $250m of taxpayer money for a basketball arena in our big city" .. that's something Iowa R's are swayed by?
I would think the opposite. Parties may be owned by big business and desirous of corporate welfare .. but conservative voters?
If those Democratic billionaire Bucks owners cared about the children they wouldn't take the money and if Herb Kohl cared more about children, he would kick in $150 million instead of $100 million.
The above statement is as pointless as yours.
Cut education spending and direct the money back to millionaires - that is the ideal republican play.
My friend, I mostly stay off the politics board for a reason. Please don't bring your daily diatribe over here, okay? Thanks.
Sorry - was just answering a question.
No worries. We don't see eye to eye on politics but agree on basketball. Good enough for me.
Just because money was cut from one place and is being spent somewhere else doesn't mean it's related.
The primary source of recompense for the Bucks arena is the $200M in jock tax the state will get in the next 20 years. Without the Bucks, that money won't exist. Not for the arena, not for education, not for roads, not for anything. It will just be gone. That doesn't mean education money is going to the arena. That's a false narrative.
The political threads are ruining this board. It prejudices peoples opinions based on the political lean of the poster.
It's not what is said, it's who says the what.....been that way here forever
Just because money was cut from one place and is being spent somewhere else doesn't mean it's related.
The primary source of recompense for the Bucks arena is the $200M in jock tax the state will get in the next 20 years. Without the Bucks, that money won't exist. Not for the arena, not for education, not for roads, not for anything. It will just be gone. That doesn't mean education money is going to the arena. That's a false narrative.
It's not what is said, it's who says the what.....been that way here forever
I've said it on other boards...and I'll say it on this one. If the state tax payers...can fund $37 million...for 100 year plus building renovations at...UW-Stout...(Harvey and Bowman Halls)...and $50 million...for an athletic building...(Knowles Center)...on the UW-River Falls campus...there should be $80 million...for an arena...that will kick money back...to the state...and will not only keep jobs...but add jobs...in Milwaukee...
He weighs in on Public Stadium financing
https://www.youtube.com/v/xcwJt4bcnXs
Yup....it's (John Oliver's show) just a cut and paste shat show now.
Your understanding of finance is stunningly terrible.
Your understanding of finance is stunningly terrible.
Can you tell us what is so wrong about it?
Also, worth noting, the Bucks aren't threatening to leave. Without a new stadium, the NBA will buy the team back and move them. That isn't a threat from the Bucks, it's a threat from the league.
Well...cmon. They did that so that the new owners wouldn't look like the bad guys.
Look, I want this thing done, but Oliver is right about one thing. Stop overselling the economic impact.
Which is why you'll note I haven't pushed the economic impact aspect. Could this revitalize downtown? Sure. Will it? No idea. But I do know that downtown is in need of revitalization and no one else is signing up for the role.
The economic impact is that worst case scenario, funding this arena will be close to break even for the state. It likely won't be a source of deliverance for downtown or Wisconsin, but it also won't be some fiscal anchor that drags the state down. The reality is almost always somewhere in the middle, and when it comes to this plan, the middle is a pretty darn good place to be.
The NBA did not put that deal in place, Herb Kohl put the poison pill in the sale to make sure the new owners did everything possible to keep the team in MKE. Figure they are in for 750Mil to purchase the team and 200 mil in stadium funding. IF the NBA buys it back and then moves the team to SEattle, my guess is the it could be close to $1.5 bil to buy the team.
Under $1b, Seattle or Vegas will be waiting with an arena.
His issue is more likely with the poster than the post. Hence why his was the first name back on my new ignore list.
He weighs in on Public Stadium financing
https://www.youtube.com/v/xcwJt4bcnXs
Well, if we can't rely on comedians for our advice who can we count on? I hear George Carlin, greatest comedian of our time, believed there was no God. Good to know for sure.
No, you don't know sh1t about finance. And who cares who you ignore.
Just going to leave this here...
Well, if we can't rely on comedians for our advice who can we count on? I hear George Carlin, greatest comedian of our time, believed there was no God. Good to know for sure.
Absolutely correct....it's the same spiel each and every week. It's formulaic.
I think he's wrong on some stuff and right on others. I've been consistent on public financing of stadiums forever on this board. Nothing has changed. The money is there where the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. I don't need John Oliver to say it, I've provided multiple other opinions that support my position. I happily provided Oliver because he seems to have so much street cred with folks here....more so than some boring guy just running the numbers.
The economic benefits are crap, and overstated. There is plenty of money to get this done without taxpayer money if they push hard enough. If not, and they leave...they leave. I'm sure it will get done somehow, but using public money for this stuff is not ideal. That has been my tune for as long as I can remember.
Absolutely correct....it's the same spiel each and every week. It's formulaic.
I think he's wrong on some stuff and right on others. I've been consistent on public financing of stadiums forever on this board. Nothing has changed. The money is there where the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. I don't need John Oliver to say it, I've provided multiple other opinions that support my position. I happily provided Oliver because he seems to have so much street cred with folks here....more so than some boring guy just running the numbers.
The economic benefits are crap, and overstated. There is plenty of money to get this done without taxpayer money if they push hard enough. If not, and they leave...they leave. I'm sure it will get done somehow, but using public money for this stuff is not ideal. That has been my tune for as long as I can remember.
Growing up, I would visit family in the Grand Rapids, MI area. I remember downtown being a wasteland. Nothing to do, no one around, those who were around felt like they were walking through a dangerous part of town. I moved to Grand Rapids when I started going to grad school at Grand Valley State just down the road. It was nothing like I remembered. There were upscale restaurants, well groomed parks, new bars and clubs (surprisingly good night life in Grand Rapids), and a beautiful river walk along the Grand river. When I asked locals what had happened, they said it all started happening when the Van Andel Arena (home of the Grand Rapids Griffins) was built. It attracted people and business and had done wonders for downtown.
I know its not this simple, but if a downtown arena for a freaking minor league hockey team could do that much for Grand Rapids, I think it is fair to assume that a new downtown arena for a professional basketball team could do wonders for Milwaukee.
Yeah, but Milwaukee already has arenas. You're just taking all the same people that would be downtown anyway and moving them a block north
The east side is much better than it was a dozen years ago when I was in school. I wouldn't have ever thought to go to the 3rd Ward, Walkers Point or Bayview and now all those areas have had wonderful things injected into them.
The downtown areas of most cities are dormant on nights and weekends. The revitalization of Milwaukee is happening before our eyes and it's happening away from downtown
It's perfectly fine to oppose all public financing for pro sports arena projects but it is the reality in the vast majority of arena projects. It's been demonstrated previously that the proposed MKE deal is actually more taxpayer friendly than most over the past 25 years. It's also absolutely true that in the absence of a new arena that the Bucks will be gone. So those are one's choices. I, for one, hope there's sufficient momentum to get the project done.
Growing up, I would visit family in the Grand Rapids, MI area. I remember downtown being a wasteland. Nothing to do, no one around, those who were around felt like they were walking through a dangerous part of town. I moved to Grand Rapids when I started going to grad school at Grand Valley State just down the road. It was nothing like I remembered. There were upscale restaurants, well groomed parks, new bars and clubs (surprisingly good night life in Grand Rapids), and a beautiful river walk along the Grand river. When I asked locals what had happened, they said it all started happening when the Van Andel Arena (home of the Grand Rapids Griffins) was built. It attracted people and business and had done wonders for downtown.
I know its not this simple, but if a downtown arena for a freaking minor league hockey team could do that much for Grand Rapids, I think it is fair to assume that a new downtown arena for a professional basketball team could do wonders for Milwaukee.
Totally get it. I just wish the puffery claims of the wonderment that will come from tax payer supported stadiums and arenas would stop.
Trade offs with everything. I hope those that want the project get the project pushed through. Whether the money is well spent or could be spent better elsewhere, well that debate will linger.
Just like I wish that those who oppose any public funding would stop lecturing folks about 'billion dollar owners' or the assertion that a pro sports team is no more of an important city asset than a new bridge or refuse collection center would be.
Growing up, I would visit family in the Grand Rapids, MI area. I remember downtown being a wasteland. Nothing to do, no one around, those who were around felt like they were walking through a dangerous part of town. I moved to Grand Rapids when I started going to grad school at Grand Valley State just down the road. It was nothing like I remembered. There were upscale restaurants, well groomed parks, new bars and clubs (surprisingly good night life in Grand Rapids), and a beautiful river walk along the Grand river. When I asked locals what had happened, they said it all started happening when the Van Andel Arena (home of the Grand Rapids Griffins) was built. It attracted people and business and had done wonders for downtown.
I know its not this simple, but if a downtown arena for a freaking minor league hockey team could do that much for Grand Rapids, I think it is fair to assume that a new downtown arena for a professional basketball team could do wonders for Milwaukee.
Where's the 'Its Happening!' guy?
... ensuring a new arena will be a part of the fabric of Wisconsin for generations to come.
Generations? Maybe a generation. 25 years from now they'll likely be doing this all over again, if not sooner.
not if they actually update it once in a while, opposed to letting it sit and get horribly outdated like the current BC. If you invest a little money over time, it avoids major money every 25 years. look at some of the other ballparks and arenas around the country. This very well could last generations now that we don't have tight-wad owners.
The United Center is 21 years old, however it is still one of the premier venues. That place will last generations.
not if they actually update it once in a while, opposed to letting it sit and get horribly outdated like the current BC. If you invest a little money over time, it avoids major money every 25 years. look at some of the other ballparks and arenas around the country. This very well could last generations now that we don't have tight-wad owners.
The United Center is 21 years old, however it is still one of the premier venues. That place will last generations.
I don't get people's grumblings with the Bradley Center. I think it's in great shape and they've done several nice updates over the past few years with the added bar/lounge areas. It's just very poorly configured to maximize revenue with club level and premium seating, the mix of upper/lower deck seats, and the end zones are a further away from the action.
ever sit in the upper level. it sucks.That's my point. It's poorly configured to put a lot of bad seats in the upper deck, which is why I think a new arena is justified. However, the building itself is in good shape and not falling apart, it's not a dump like Rosemont.
not if they actually update it once in a while, opposed to letting it sit and get horribly outdated like the current BC. If you invest a little money over time, it avoids major money every 25 years. look at some of the other ballparks and arenas around the country. This very well could last generations now that we don't have tight-wad owners.
The United Center is 21 years old, however it is still one of the premier venues. That place will last generations.
That my point. It's poorly configured to put a lot of bad seats in the upper deck, which is why I think a new arena is justified. However, the building itself is in good shape and not falling apart, it's not a dump like Rosemont.
I like the building too, and it is in good shape. You are correct the configuration is screwy. Seems a waste to ground level it though and then keep the arena.
Well, it was built for hockey, not basketball necessarily. Look, I like the BC too and would have supported it remaining Milwaukee's signature facility were it not for the NBA demanding it be replaced. Wasn't prepared to lose the Bucks over a building. But if you think about it, the Milwaukee Arena (or whatever they call it now) is still a very useful 11,000 seat facility and is sufficiently different from the proposed arena that it'll still have a purpose. Much like that basement beer fridge from 1970, it does it's job quite well and I support keeping it. One thought I had. I wonder if the 'new' scoreboard in the BC might be moved over to the Arena to enhance that facility?
Well, it was built for hockey, not basketball necessarily. Look, I like the BC too and would have supported it remaining Milwaukee's signature facility were it not for the NBA demanding it be replaced. Wasn't prepared to lose the Bucks over a building. But if you think about it, the Milwaukee Arena (or whatever they call it now) is still a very useful 11,000 seat facility and is sufficiently different from the proposed arena that it'll still have a purpose. Much like that basement beer fridge from 1970, it does it's job quite well and I support keeping it. One thought I had. I wonder if the 'new' scoreboard in the BC might be moved over to the Arena to enhance that facility?The Panther Arena is getting a new scoreboard. I don't know the specifics but I can't agine it to be bigger/better than the new one at the BC.
Well, it was built for hockey, not basketball necessarily. Look, I like the BC too and would have supported it remaining Milwaukee's signature facility were it not for the NBA demanding it be replaced. Wasn't prepared to lose the Bucks over a building. But if you think about it, the Milwaukee Arena (or whatever they call it now) is still a very useful 11,000 seat facility and is sufficiently different from the proposed arena that it'll still have a purpose. Much like that basement beer fridge from 1970, it does it's job quite well and I support keeping it. One thought I had. I wonder if the 'new' scoreboard in the BC might be moved over to the Arena to enhance that facility?
Your basement obviously isn't NBA-ready.
Be careful or you may lose your beer to Seattle.
When Pabst left, didn't they leave for the Seattle area? Pacific Northwest maybe?
I don't get people's grumblings with the Bradley Center. I think it's in great shape and they've done several nice updates over the past few years with the added bar/lounge areas. It's just very poorly configured to maximize revenue with club level and premium seating, the mix of upper/lower deck seats, and the end zones are a further away from the action.The roof is breaking. The heating system doesn't work at time. No hot water in bathroom. Cracks on the side of the building and has major water issues. Some things for starters.
The Panther Arena is getting a new scoreboard. I don't know the specifics but I can't agine it to be bigger/better than the new one at the BC.UWM Panther Arena got the new scoreboard and side viedoboards last season and replaced 3,000 plus seats down low. They are replacing 3,000 plus seats this summer. The scoreboard does look sharp!
San Antonio, but now they're HQed in Los Angeles.
Pabst owns Rainier and Olympia, though, which are marvelous cheap beers for those of us in the Seattle market.
The roof is breaking. The heating system doesn't work at time. No hot water in bathroom. Cracks on the side of the building and has major water issues. Some things for starters.And it has bats!
And it has bats!Don't remove me, I want to go in the new arena. ;) I miss Ed Cooley.
The roof is breaking. The heating system doesn't work at time. No hot water in bathroom. Cracks on the side of the building and has major water issues. Some things for starters.
ever sit in the upper level. it sucks.
UWM Panther Arena got the new scoreboard and side viedoboards last season and replaced 3,000 plus seats down low. They are replacing 3,000 plus seats this summer. The scoreboard does look sharp!
https://localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/panthers-arena-scoreboard.jpg?w=770
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNxnrN_6AY
I know I'm not the only one...in the BC I prefer the upper level mid-ish court seats to those in the lower level. Close to the rails of course, but a better angle than most lower level seats.
I know I'm not the only one...in the BC I prefer the upper level mid-ish court seats to those in the lower level. Close to the rails of course, but a better angle than most lower level seats.
Also agree. Plan was not to move down to the lower bowl until I could end up solidly in the land of gold vests and jumping around. Now it looks like we won't have to worry about that.
Truthfully, most of the season ticket holders around us have been with the program almost forever. Our neighbor has had tickets since 1971.
I know I'm not the only one...in the BC I prefer the upper level mid-ish court seats to those in the lower level. Close to the rails of course, but a better angle than most lower level seats.
Wasn't that new scoreboard supposed to be State of the art? Are they gonna keep that or just toss it out in the trash?
They will resell it.
Gosh .. so many winners. Looks like 2 of the losers get to pay for the deal. Hooray.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2015/07/17/eyes-on-milwaukee-bucks-arena-winners-and-losers/
This new stadium is a great opportunity for MU to reconfigure the student section.That is what I am afraid of. I could see Wojo giving the best seats to the students, because he feels it gives him a better home court advantage. I for one will not pay to sit behind students.
That is what I am afraid of. I could see Wojo giving the best seats to the students, because he feels it gives him a better home court advantage. I for one will not pay to sit behind students.
That is what I am afraid of. I could see Wojo giving the best seats to the students, because he feels it gives him a better home court advantage. I for one will not pay to sit behind students.
That is what I am afraid of. I could see Wojo giving the best seats to the students, because he feels it gives him a better home court advantage. I for one will not pay to sit behind students.
I would be shocked if it happens Bilsu. When I was the Asst AD we commissioned a study to move the students to better areas. The loss in revenue was huge. Ultimately we convinced the administration and the students to go for general admission student seating, which is still in place today. I just don't think the economics are going to work. They didn't back then, I'd be shocked if they do today.
Add in that we are probably losing 2k seats, I doubt MU is looking to give away any prime seating locations. I like the endzone idea. There will probably be more lower bowl seats, so the number of students close to the action will be improved.
http://deadspin.com/bucks-co-owner-now-works-for-governor-who-pushed-throug-1719227333
This comes as no surprise really, but one question that I can't find in this unending thread... do the Bucks own this new stadium? I'm guessing yes. The Bradley Center was a publicly owned space donated to the state right? I think this whole deal would be a lot easier to swallow if the stadium is public property.
The Bucks will operate and be responsible for overruns, etc. The BC wasn't exactly profitable as a venue, so I don't think the state/city wanted to be on the hook.
Also, the Bucks main owners are high-profile democratic donors that offered to include Bill Clinton on a conference call to recruit Monroe to the Bucks. I'm sure if the Gov pushing this would've been democratic and running for President, Deadspin would have been pushing this as a huge conflict of interest. Deadspin really has gone downhill.
Exactly.
This is a simple math exercise. MU doesn't have football, they need to maximize revenue. Relying on the whims of 18-22 year olds is a fool's errand. They don't always show up, inconsistent, etc. More importantly, they are squatting on valuable revenue vehicles....seats.
We pay for our seats same as anyone, albeit at a reduced rate. Your "squatters" argument might hold more water if we were selling out every game, but those seats would most likely go unused if not for students. As is, those seats that would probably go unsold are generating $300,000+ for the university.
I believe the new arena will be a massive change for the students.Honestly, not the worst thing in the world. Tickets were so cheap students had a "no big loss" feel when they missed a random game or five when the tickets are six bucks a piece. Left a lot of seats open and led to some apathy. Student section could sell less tickets but end up having more butts in the seats. Only problem is the bigger games but as long as the student section isn't completely reduced by the 2K, the smaller stadium should make up for any lost noise.
Smaller section is a gimmie. Probably whatever that end zone will hold and a couple higher sections.
I don't think student tickets will be an easy get anymore.
Maybe they make the student section smaller, but we have never averaged 17,000 attendance. Until that happens I don't know why you wouldn't want to have as many students as possible at the game given that it is the team that represents them.
We pay for our seats same as anyone, albeit at a reduced rate. Your "squatters" argument might hold more water if we were selling out every game, but those seats would most likely go unused if not for students. As is, those seats that would probably go unsold are generating $300,000+ for the university.
That was my point, however. You are paying $99 for men's basketball and all the other sports are "free" with the Fanatics package (I know, I helped created that package about 17 years ago). Technically their is an accounting allocation of some of that $99 to those other sports, whether they are still doing that from an accounting perspective, I don't know.We are a college basketball program and part of the actual deliverable to the networks is a college atmosphere.
So let's keep it simple, you are paying $99 for 17 games. That's $5.82 per game for your ticket. That same ticket for a non student is anywhere from $30 to $50 per game depending on the opponent....or basically ~5X to ~10X per game. Those seats in the lower level don't typically go unused and when the new arena comes online, that will be even more of the case. Upper level student seats, I would agree with you, but the lowers would sell. That's some significant per game revenue that is being left on the table because of the students. That's ok, it is the right choice to make by the university. However, moving the students to even more valuable seating is very unlikely to happen. Quite frankly, the students haven't "earned" it in the sense of showing up come hell or high water over the years. Secondly, the revenue tradeoff for a school that doesn't have football just isn't going to cut it.
We are a college basketball program and part of the actual deliverable to the networks is a college atmosphere.
Our role model should be Michigan State. Breslin Center is 14,797 and they sell it out. Here is a link to the way they run the Izzone which is 3,000 students. They place a premium on students attending the games and coming in early in order to secure the lowerbowl seating.
http://futurealumni.msu.edu/programs/2014-15-Izzone-FAQs.pdf
Guys/Gals
Big vote from the Assembly on Tuesday. If it passes (AS IS), then it goes to the governor for signature. Then Milwaukee Common Council will have a vote in September as well but they are extremely likely to easily pass it.
For those who want the arena, the most important thing right now is getting it through the Assembly with NO CHANGES. If they many any amendments, it would have to go back to the Senate for another vote and we are back to square one.
The calls to the elected officials were critical to the success in the Senate. The same will hold true at the assembly level.
If you are so inclined, make the call to your assembly representative and others even outside your district if you wish.
The calls matter very, very much.
Go MU!
Guys/Gals
Big vote from the Assembly on Tuesday. If it passes (AS IS), then it goes to the governor for signature. Then Milwaukee Common Council will have a vote in September as well but they are extremely likely to easily pass it.
For those who want the arena, the most important thing right now is getting it through the Assembly with NO CHANGES. If they many any amendments, it would have to go back to the Senate for another vote and we are back to square one.
The calls to the elected officials were critical to the success in the Senate. The same will hold true at the assembly level.
If you are so inclined, make the call to your assembly representative and others even outside your district if you wish.
The calls matter very, very much.
Go MU!
According to the agreement the team will need to move, if a new arena will not be ready for the start of the 2017 season. It is also suppose to take two years to build the arena, which means even if they started today the way construction actually works it is going to be hard to make that deadline. Now the project is waiting two months after the senate approved it to have the County Board approve it. I doubt it will happen, but after everything is finally approved the NBA could just say the arena will not be done in time, so they are going to buy the team and move it. The assembly should not be waiting so long to act on it and the County Board should meet the day after the Governor signs it. It starts to get really dicey, if the assembly passes a different bill, which means it has to go back to the senate.
The Association will grant an extension with the time frame. All they really want is the new facility ball to start rollin', ai na?I hope so, but why should our politicians seem like they are in no hurry.
Big vote today in the assembly.
Let's hope it passes without any new amendments, so it doesn't have to return to the Senate for their approval (again). Unfortunately. any changes from the Assembly could impact the votes of Senators.
If it passes "as is", it's ready for Walker's signature. And then on to the common council, which should be very, very pro-arena.
Very big day for the future of Marquette hoops and for the entire Milwaukee area.
I hope so, but why should our politicians seem like they are in no hurry.
I was told there will be amendment proposals and they will likely all be shot down. This should pass relatively easily.
I was told there will be amendment proposals and they will likely all be shot down. This should pass relatively easily.
I assume that the City taking until September to approve does not really slow anything down or does it?
I imagine that they are not ready to put shovels in the ground yet anyway, but that once it passes the assembly the owners will proceed with the architects and engineers full speed ahead and get ready for an Oct ground breaking?
That will give them until November or later to have firm enough plans in place, with the escalation work starting in October? Maybe it will be ready in Winter of 2017? Maybe the BE season opener will be our opening game in the new arena in 2017?
I know the owners have been proceeding with soil samples and engineers in the mean time anyway.
Solid speculation or are they going to be ready to break ground in Sept and go full speed once the City gives it's blessings? I'd assume permits will be issued on demand?
I assume that the City taking until September to approve does not really slow anything down or does it?
I imagine that they are not ready to put shovels in the ground yet anyway, but that once it passes the assembly the owners will proceed with the architects and engineers full speed ahead and get ready for an Oct ground breaking?
That will give them until November or later to have firm enough plans in place, with the escalation work starting in October? Maybe it will be ready in Winter of 2017? Maybe the BE season opener will be our opening game in the new arena in 2017?
I know the owners have been proceeding with soil samples and engineers in the mean time anyway.
Solid speculation or are they going to be ready to break ground in Sept and go full speed once the City gives it's blessings? I'd assume permits will be issued on demand?
Bill passes State Assembly 52-34! Goes to @GovWalker now for signature! Great job by all of you lobbying your reps!
Bill passes State Assembly 52-34! Goes to @GovWalker now for signature! Great job by all of you lobbying your reps!
But people need to get over the "building a stadium for a billionaire thing." That is simply what is done now. St. Louis can stand up to that all they want, but they will lose a team in the process. They don't want to lose a team, so they have to play this game.
So now that this has passed what's the timeline for construction going to be?
So, I'd suspect and have speculated that some moving of soil in October... I believe it was BrewCity who thinks that maybe about right... that shovels are in the ground in October or at least before winter. The detailed plans will probably develop as the site is being excavated.
I hope that as part of the City process/approval in September, that the Bucks reveal some more renderings and maybe even a rendering of the bowl. I understand that the owners have been fronting some money for engineering stuff and architects. If so, maybe we'll see some more of that in September, I hope.
I'm looking forward to seeing the concepts for the bowl and concourse, if you can't tell. :)
So if they start digging around October-ish, will the surface parking lot just north of the BC be unavailable this season?
What's the over/under on this thing getting built faster than DePaul's new arena?
But I was told Milwaukee was Algonquin for "the good land", so no remediation should be required. It's in the name!!
That was before the pale faced invaders from across the ocean got ahold of it.
Also, ideally want contaminants out prior to frost if possible.
Pardon my ignorance (and apparently lack of Milwaukee history), but what's the cause of these contaminants? The site was previously an interchange for a failed highway project correct? What else brought on all this fear (or fact) of contamination?
Pardon my ignorance (and apparently lack of Milwaukee history), but what's the cause of these contaminants? The site was previously an interchange for a failed highway project correct? What else brought on all this fear (or fact) of contamination?
The highway was only around sixty years or so.
But I was told Milwaukee was Algonquin for "the good land", so no remediation should be required. It's in the name!!
Only 3 decades off. Opened in 1971, was torn down in 2003.
Edit: Thanks PTM
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-to-sign-bucks-arena-funding-bill-at-wisconsin-state-fair-b99555622z1-321544131.html
Walker is a Republican. All Republicans suck. May he eat a cream puff gone bad.
Anyone else find it funny that DePaul announced a new stadium about a full year before Marquette/Milwaukee did, and they have yet to even break ground?
Anyone else find it funny that DePaul announced a new stadium about a full year before Marquette/Milwaukee did, and they have yet to even break ground?
Anyone else find it funny that DePaul announced a new stadium about a full year before Marquette/Milwaukee did, and they have yet to even break ground?
Legitimate question: who plays a home game in their new arena first? Marquette or DePaul?
Marquette and its not close.
100% Agreed. Milwaukee will (most likely) be braking ground in the next 1-2 months. Their deal was officially announced in April, with approval in July.
Chicago's DePaul/McCormick Place Events Center was announced in May 2013. Construction was planned to begin in 2014. After amending the proposal, which saw the original 12,000 seat, $300 million stadium go to a 10,000 seat, $173 million stadium, the project saw a one year delay in ground breaking until 2015.
I see the site every day, and let me tell you, it is not even close to begin breaking ground and/or having construction anytime soon. I would be shocked if anything happens before 2016, at the earliest.
Why DePaul rejected a 10-year, rent-free, offer from the United Center is beyond me. The new stadium location is no closer to DePaul's campus than Rosemont for students. It has no close train stop, and there is nothing there for students to go to.
That was before the pale faced invaders from across the ocean got ahold of it.
I see the site every day, and let me tell you, it is not even close to begin breaking ground and/or having construction anytime soon. I would be shocked if anything happens before 2016, at the earliest.
Why DePaul rejected a 10-year, rent-free, offer from the United Center is beyond me. The new stadium location is no closer to DePaul's campus than Rosemont for students. It has no close train stop, and there is nothing there for students to go to.
100% Agreed. Milwaukee will (most likely) be braking ground in the next 1-2 months. Their deal was officially announced in April, with approval in July.
Chicago's DePaul/McCormick Place Events Center was announced in May 2013. Construction was planned to begin in 2014. After amending the proposal, which saw the original 12,000 seat, $300 million stadium go to a 10,000 seat, $173 million stadium, the project saw a one year delay in ground breaking until 2015.
I see the site every day, and let me tell you, it is not even close to begin breaking ground and/or having construction anytime soon. I would be shocked if anything happens before 2016, at the earliest.
Why DePaul rejected a 10-year, rent-free, offer from the United Center is beyond me. The new stadium location is no closer to DePaul's campus than Rosemont for students. It has no close train stop, and there is nothing there for students to go to.
Not to mention there is a theoretical drop dead date from the NBA for Milwaukee, no such must be done by date exists for DePaul that I'm aware of.
100% Agreed. Milwaukee will (most likely) be braking ground in the next 1-2 months. Their deal was officially announced in April, with approval in July.United Center hard to get to and in a bad neighborhood. Not a selling point for a college. The new arena is accessible to the El and it is gives De Paul a lot of control over the use. They had to make a deal with the devil but then again they are the Blue Demons.
Chicago's DePaul/McCormick Place Events Center was announced in May 2013. Construction was planned to begin in 2014. After amending the proposal, which saw the original 12,000 seat, $300 million stadium go to a 10,000 seat, $173 million stadium, the project saw a one year delay in ground breaking until 2015.
I see the site every day, and let me tell you, it is not even close to begin breaking ground and/or having construction anytime soon. I would be shocked if anything happens before 2016, at the earliest.
Why DePaul rejected a 10-year, rent-free, offer from the United Center is beyond me. The new stadium location is no closer to DePaul's campus than Rosemont for students. It has no close train stop, and there is nothing there for students to go to.
United Center hard to get to and in a bad neighborhood. Not a selling point for a college. The new arena is accessible to the El and it is gives De Paul a lot of control over the use. They had to make a deal with the devil but then again they are the Blue Demons.
Ultimately will be a good thing for the Big East and that will benefit us directly and indirectly.
United Center hard to get to and in a bad neighborhood. Not a selling point for a college. The new arena is accessible to the El and it is gives De Paul a lot of control over the use. They had to make a deal with the devil but then again they are the Blue Demons.
Ultimately will be a good thing for the Big East and that will benefit us directly and indirectly.
I work 6 blocks from the UC and it's not that bad. Sure, I wouldn't want to walk alone at night just north of the UC but the same can be said for the BC. Also, for DePaul Students to get to the UC would just mean jumping on the Ashland bus or the Red Line to Green/Pink Ashland Stop and it's only a 5 - 7 min walk. Also, with the new developments in the West Loop, Fulton Market and now all the new breweries / distilleries in the area just north of the UC, things are changing fast. It's better than heading to the south loop IMO.
I work 6 blocks from the UC and it's not that bad. Sure, I wouldn't want to walk alone at night just north of the UC but the same can be said for the BC. Also, for DePaul Students to get to the UC would just mean jumping on the Ashland bus or the Red Line to Green/Pink Ashland Stop and it's only a 5 - 7 min walk. Also, with the new developments in the West Loop, Fulton Market and now all the new breweries / distilleries in the area just north of the UC, things are changing fast. It's better than heading to the south loop IMO.
So the UC area is harder to get to and it's an up and coming neighborhood that is nowhere near the nice stuff in the West Loop.
McCormick Place regularly houses mega events and is a straight shot from DePaul on the Red Line. The Red Line runs 24 hours, so you're not going to end up with people stranded on the West Side when the Green Line stops running at 1am.
I agree that an on campus arena would be preferable, but their new location is significantly better than the UC's area.
That being said: I don't see what the problem would have been playing at the UC for 2 years to give it a go to make sure they wanted to spend the money on an arena. It's better than the Allstate Arena
Was the possibility of playing at the UC for just two years on the table?
Would the window of opportunity on the new arena have closed with a two year delay?
So the UC area is harder to get to and it's an up and coming neighborhood that is nowhere near the nice stuff in the West Loop.
McCormick Place regularly houses mega events and is a straight shot from DePaul on the Red Line. The Red Line runs 24 hours, so you're not going to end up with people stranded on the West Side when the Green Line stops running at 1am.
I agree that an on campus arena would be preferable, but their new location is significantly better than the UC's area.
That being said: I don't see what the problem would have been playing at the UC for 2 years to give it a go to make sure they wanted to spend the money on an arena. It's better than the Allstate Arena
United Center hard to get to and in a bad neighborhood. Not a selling point for a college. The new arena is accessible to the El and it is gives De Paul a lot of control over the use. They had to make a deal with the devil but then again they are the Blue Demons.
Ultimately will be a good thing for the Big East and that will benefit us directly and indirectly.
I think the idea was that DePaul would have dropped the new arena had they decided to play at the UC.
Perhaps.
But with each passing day, their decision to decline the UC offer - either as a temporary or long-term solution - looks worse.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/09/15/bucks-arena-opening-to-be-delayed-ayear-until-2018.html?ana=twt
Here is the original article on the UC offer.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121119/BLOGS02/121119774/united-center-offers-depaul-free-rent-for-blue-demons-games
"But United Center ownership — Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz and, particularly, Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf — are making an extraordinarily vigorous push themselves, perhaps out of fear that a new McPier arena would pull away some of the United Center concert and other nonbasketball business."
--------------
So how likely do you think it would be that DePaul goes to the United Center and says? "Hey remember that free rent offer? Can we take you up on that for a few years while we build a new arena?"
@richkirchenmbj: .@bucks spokesman says still target fall 2017 arena opening despite owner saying it will be 2018 http://t.co/hafK3t0CjE via @MKEBizJournal
United Center hard to get to and in a bad neighborhood. Not a selling point for a college. The new arena is accessible to the El and it is gives De Paul a lot of control over the use. They had to make a deal with the devil but then again they are the Blue Demons.
Ultimately will be a good thing for the Big East and that will benefit us directly and indirectly.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/lease-negotiations-for-new-milwaukee-bucks-arena-to-begin-shortly-b99584224z1-329551291.htmlThat will probably come after the Bucks lease due to whatever provisions are in Bucks' contract re priority of dates, $$, etc.
Are we going to hear anything about a Marquette lease deal being negotiated with the new stadium sometime soon, too?