Just trying to generate some thoughtful discussion.... Would MU be better or worse off with the Bucks leaving town? I know some like to bestow the virtues of the recruiting benefits of having the Bucks players around the city, but perhaps we would get equal or greater benefit from being the top BB program in a large city without an NBA team.
Kohl has tried enough with the Bucks to make me feel appreciative, but I don't think he has the energy to try to build the political team needed to get them to build a new arena. Its either going to sit there for 10 years until one of the rafters falls down and hurts somebody or he'll create a plausible deniability scenario that a new buyer would move the team out of here (see: Seattle).
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/121810714.html
Milwaukee can be such a nice, sensible city, but sometimes it can be too sensible for its own good. This is going to be a long, ugly process just like the Miller Park issue was. I can't imagine that if the State Legislature from 1996 could transport themselves to 2011, that the idea of adopting a 0.1% sales tax for Miller Park would be considered controversial at all.
If Milwaukee wants to be a big league city, this is the game that has to be played.
As for how this impacts Marquette, my feeling is that the only benefit we take from the Bradley Center is that it is an "NBA Arena." If it is no longer an "NBA Arena," it is too big, too quiet, and too multi-purpose for Marquette's needs.
I think MU would definately be worse off. Right now there is a $1. facilities fee added to tickets. I could see this going to $3, if Bucks leave. There is a hugh diffenece between college and pro ball, I do not see MU benefiting much in attendance, if the bucks leave. You do not go from being a pro basketball fan to watching MU play UWM or many of the other teams on their schedule. The really good games are already basically sold out. I think it is hard enough already to convince players from accross the country to come to Milwaukee and that is with Milwaukee being one of the few cities that has both pro basketball and baseball. I am not sure how much those teams help, but they certainly do not hurt. The best thing for MU would be a new state of the art arena and the only chance of that happening would be if the bucks stay.
Quote from: dw3dw3dw3 on May 16, 2011, 11:44:04 AM
Just trying to generate some thoughtful discussion.... Would MU be better or worse off with the Bucks leaving town? I know some like to bestow the virtues of the recruiting benefits of having the Bucks players around the city, but perhaps we would get equal or greater benefit from being the top BB program in a large city without an NBA team.
Kohl has tried enough with the Bucks to make me feel appreciative, but I don't think he has the energy to try to build the political team needed to get them to build a new arena. Its either going to sit there for 10 years until one of the rafters falls down and hurts somebody or he'll create a plausible deniability scenario that a new buyer would move the team out of here (see: Seattle).
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/121810714.html
Have you watched the Bucks? We are the top program in town.
I think a very concrete way it would hurt us is you would see way less of the NBA players and Marquette alum a la Novak, Matthews, Wade, etc. showing up at Marquette games or even practices. They do this when they are in town playing the Bucks.
I'm not saying these guys would stop supporting the program altogether, but it is asking a lot for them to make appearances in Milwaukee for recruiting or what have you when they have no other reason to be here.
Do you think if the Bucks left the State of Wisconsin would be willing to sell to MU?
Not sure if MU would be interested, how cheap they could get it, but I could definitely see this Republican administration wanting to unload it (not trying to turn this political, I could just easily see it happening as a way to get a little revenue or at least unload a burden under control of the state). Would be kind of cool to have it be actual MU campus property.
We could rename it the Robert A. Wild arena. :D
Quote from: bilsu on May 16, 2011, 12:06:48 PM
There is a hugh diffenece between college and pro ball, I do not see MU benefiting much in attendance, if the bucks leave. You do not go from being a pro basketball fan to watching MU play UWM or many of the other teams on their schedule.
SeattleU, which is new to D1, plays at KeyArena now.
I think UWM would get a small jump in attendance than MU would if the Bucks left.
I'm not a NBA fan, but I don't want the Bucks to leave town. We need a new arena for the Bucks.
Hopefully with a new arena we would leapfrog the Admirals on the pecking order for dates
Quote from: PBRme on May 16, 2011, 01:30:36 PM
Hopefully with a new arena we would leapfrog the Admirals on the pecking order for dates
We already have. MU is the #2 tenant of the BC.
I don't think it matters much either way. It helps having NBA players around for recruitment and having an NBA arena.
If the Bucks left, MU would get more corporate accounts and I think more ticket sales. A lot of Buck's corporate accounts would probably pick up a few MU season tickets that don't think about it now. It would look really really cheap to them compared to the Bucks, as well, so it would be a natural to pick up a few seats for clients. Plus, we'd get more weekend dates and Saturday nights!!
The best scenario for MU is for the Bucks to stay and get a state-of-the-art arena for MU to play at. Recruits will want to play at one of the best arenas in the world.
I think location of a new arena would be super important. If its just built on the current site of the BC, fine. But if they keep the BC and build elsewhere that could be very harmful to MU, should we decide to move our team to the new arena.
In fact, I'd rather take the BC, with its location close to campus, then a new state-of-the-art arena by Miller Park or something. Take a look at DePaul if you want to see what happens when you play far from campus.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 16, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
I think location of a new arena would be super important. If its just built on the current site of the BC, fine. But if they keep the BC and build elsewhere that could be very harmful to MU, should we decide to move our to the new arena.
In fact, I'd rather take the BC, with its location close to campus, then a new state-of-the-art arena by Miller Park or something. Take a look at DePaul if you want to see what happens when you play far from campus.
How about the current MECCA site?
If the city builds something new, you can bet that it will be located in the Park East area, which is adjacent to the Bradley Center. That's where all of the spare land is and where all of the arena "infrastructure" is already located.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 16, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
In fact, I'd rather take the BC, with its location close to campus, then a new state-of-the-art arena by Miller Park or something. Take a look at DePaul if you want to see what happens when you play far from campus.
Agreed.
The location of Miller Park is great for tailgaters but did nothing to provide an economic boost to the downtown area. My co-workers who travel to Milwaukee from out of state almost always ask why the city built a new stadium in the middle of no where.
Back to the topic, I second what BrewCity said. If/when a new stadium gets built, it will in Park East.
Kohl said at his press conference that he has no interest in selling the Bucks at this time. He also stated that they will not leave and when he does sell it will be to someone committed to keeping the team in the city.
Hopefully Kohl can get a new facility built but either way the Bucks aren't going anywhere.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 16, 2011, 03:19:07 PM
The location of Miller Park is great for tailgaters but did nothing to provide an economic boost to the downtown area. My co-workers who travel to Milwaukee from out of state almost always ask why the city built a new stadium in the middle of no where.
Oh boy.
I brought this up two years ago and I got a bunch of "tailgating is too important to Brewers fans" and "Brewers fans are too cheap to go out to dinner and need to truck in their own food" type responses.
I agree with you that the economic impact of Miller Park has been muted to a degree because of its location.
Hopefully he has that in his will.
He's got to be up there in age.
Quote from: MuMark on May 16, 2011, 03:30:30 PM
He also stated that they will not leave and when he does sell it will be to someone committed to keeping the team in the city.
Nice to hear, but that really means nothing. No one would buy the team if they were absolutely under all circumstances required to keep the team in Milwaukee (if the NBA would even allow that). Even if he sells to someone "committed" to keeping the team in Milwaukee, those commitments are easily changed by financial pressure. And they could also sell to another group, who might have completely different intentions.
The moving or staying put of a particular team is up to the current owner. If he sells, he has little recourse, despite what assurances he might have previously received.
Quote from: 6746jonesr on May 16, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Have you watched the Bucks? We are the top program in town.
The difference in talent is big. Dan Gadzuric would be our best player next year. Yes, they suck but theirs a reason why I prefer NBA ball and MU is second.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 16, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
Do you think if the Bucks left the State of Wisconsin would be willing to sell to MU?
Not sure if MU would be interested, how cheap they could get it, but I could definitely see this Republican administration wanting to unload it (not trying to turn this political, I could just easily see it happening as a way to get a little revenue or at least unload a burden under control of the state). Would be kind of cool to have it be actual MU campus property.
We could rename it the Robert A. Wild arena. :D
IMHO, I think MU would lose money running the facility, not to mention take away resources to run a full scale arena like that. Besides 25 events each year, what would we us the BC for?
I still don't see why the BC couldn't be renovated. There's a ton of room to the north to build whatever types of attached restaurants, hotels, or gift shops to generate revenue year-round. They could expand into the atriums on either side to put in more amenities. They could tear down the parking ramp to the west and add-on in that direction also, or build a new attached parking ramp to the north.
The only real problem with the BC is the configuration of the non-permanent seats in the lower bowl, and that could be remodeled to better fill in the gaps with more high-value seats.
Quote from: Litehouse on May 16, 2011, 05:18:22 PM
I still don't see why the BC couldn't be renovated. There's a ton of room to the north to build whatever types of attached restaurants, hotels, or gift shops to generate revenue year-round. They could expand into the atriums on either side to put in more amenities. They could tear down the parking ramp to the west and add-on in that direction also, or build a new attached parking ramp to the north.
The only real problem with the BC is the configuration of the non-permanent seats in the lower bowl, and that could be remodeled to better fill in the gaps with more high-value seats.
The new stadium would be to generate money for the Bucks. They wouldn't gain money from restaurants, etc. The BC lacks suites and the lower bowl is configured for hockey, not basketball. It would cost more to renovate to the Bucks needs than it would generate income.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on May 16, 2011, 05:22:40 PM
The new stadium would be to generate money for the Bucks. They wouldn't gain money from restaurants, etc. The BC lacks suites and the lower bowl is configured for hockey, not basketball. It would cost more to renovate to the Bucks needs than it would generate income.
One of the main reasons for bulding a new Arena is that the Bucks would get revenue from things like restaurants and gift shops, like the Brewers do from Fridays, and the Packers do from Curly's Pub.
Regarding suites, I don't think it's a lack of suites, a lot of them are empty anyway. I think it's more of a lack of demand for suites. If they really needed more suites, they could rip out all the upper-deck seats in the north endzone and build suites all the way up with an attached bar/restaurant in there somewhere.
What would be so expensive about reconfiguring the risers in the lower bowl? Put in a tier of "club seats" on the west side with access to the courtside bar. What are these other "needs" that the Bucks have?
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 16, 2011, 12:35:29 PM
Do you think if the Bucks left the State of Wisconsin would be willing to sell to MU?
Not sure if MU would be interested, how cheap they could get it, but I could definitely see this Republican administration wanting to unload it (not trying to turn this political, I could just easily see it happening as a way to get a little revenue or at least unload a burden under control of the state). Would be kind of cool to have it be actual MU campus property.
We could rename it the Robert A. Wild arena. :D
And then what do you do with the other 345 nights a year?
Quote from: Litehouse on May 16, 2011, 05:34:40 PM
One of the main reasons for bulding a new Arena is that the Bucks would get revenue from things like restaurants and gift shops, like the Brewers do from Fridays, and the Packers do from Curly's Pub.
Regarding suites, I don't think it's a lack of suites, a lot of them are empty anyway. I think it's more of a lack of demand for suites. If they really needed more suites, they could rip out all the upper-deck seats in the north endzone and build suites all the way up with an attached bar/restaurant in there somewhere.
What would be so expensive about reconfiguring the risers in the lower bowl? Put in a tier of "club seats" on the west side with access to the courtside bar. What are these other "needs" that the Bucks have?
The suites may be empty for certain events, but they are all sold out and there is demand for more of them. And tearing up any building to add them, and to reconfigure the lower bowl, would be almost as expensive as building a new arena PLUS it wouldn't disrupt a season. You can't very well renovate the BC when there are events happening there 12 months a year. It's not as though you could even add a bunch of boxes to the upper level in the months between basketball seasons.
Does the state own the BC? I thought it was independently owned by the BC Board. Also, I remember hearing that MU was offered the MECCA for free when the BC was built, but declined, for many of the same reasons being brought up now. However, it might be different if the Bucks were no longer around.
The Bradley Center is owned by the "Bradley Center Sports and Entertainment Corporation," which is a seperate legal entity created by the state to oversee its operation. The problem is that all of its revenue is within the Center and its parking structures. They don't have anyway to generate revenue outside of the Center itself.
However, they cannot "sell" the Center without an act of the legislature, and there is no way MU would want to own it - it's a frickin' black hole.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 17, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
The suites may be empty for certain events, but they are all sold out and there is demand for more of them. And tearing up any building to add them, and to reconfigure the lower bowl, would be almost as expensive as building a new arena PLUS it wouldn't disrupt a season. You can't very well renovate the BC when there are events happening there 12 months a year. It's not as though you could even add a bunch of boxes to the upper level in the months between basketball seasons.
The lost revenue during renovation is a good point, but I still can't believe the renovation would cost as much as a new Arena (maybe $50M vs. $300M+). Ultimately, none of us here would really know the numbers unless we went out and got quotes, and I suppose it's kind of like debating whether it's worth spending $20,000 to remodel your kitchen, when you'd really rather buy a new house.
Well, renovation was the option chosen by the Oracle Arena in Oakland. It cost $121 Million (15 years ago), which was basically stripping it down to its walls. It took just over a year...Golden State played in San Jose for that year.
They could probably build a new one for about $300 Million. And I have no idea where the Bucks, Warriors and Admirals would play for a year - the Arena???
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 17, 2011, 08:18:26 AM
Well, renovation was the option chosen by the Oracle Arena in Oakland. It cost $121 Million (15 years ago), which was basically stripping it down to its walls. It took just over a year...Golden State played in San Jose for that year.
They could probably build a new one for about $300 Million. And I have no idea where the Bucks, Warriors and Admirals would play for a year - the Arena???
Probably the Kohl Hole... except MU would play at the Arena.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 17, 2011, 08:18:26 AM
Well, renovation was the option chosen by the Oracle Arena in Oakland. It cost $121 Million (15 years ago), which was basically stripping it down to its walls. It took just over a year...Golden State played in San Jose for that year.
They could probably build a new one for about $300 Million. And I have no idea where the Bucks, Warriors and Admirals would play for a year - the Arena???
I would guess that MU would see a slight increse in season tickets from pure basketball fans and corporations if the Bucks left, so that would be good. But then you would still have less going into the BC from the Bucks. I don't think the state would have paid for a new scoreboard if it was just MU and the Admirals and more costs for upkeep would be difficult to handle with less revenue during Bucks games.
$121 million 15 years ago is probably $500 million today. Based on what I heard about Lambeau the cost to renevate in 2003 would have doubled if they did it in 2008. I am no expert but I bet it would cost $600 million to build a new arena and half that to gut the BC and remodel. Big problem with the BC is that its footprint is tiny. It is not like the outer walls are huge and provide room inside to add different areas. So there is no real structure left to expand into, you need to widen the footprint which is expensive.
It would cost much less than $600M. The KFC Yum Center cost $238M and just opened last year. Now, that has 72 suites, while a new Milwaukee area would need have more than that (it has 68 right now.) It would also need "club level" seating. But that would not double the cost by any means.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 17, 2011, 02:49:25 PM
It would cost much less than $600M. The KFC Yum Center cost $238M and just opened last year. Now, that has 72 suites, while a new Milwaukee area would need have more than that (it has 68 right now.) It would also need "club level" seating. But that would not double the cost by any means.
You could be right. I guess OKC newer area was in the $225m range but the Magic new arena in Orlando was almost $500m and top of the line. So if built today I guess $250 would be the low end and $500 the high. But you also have to remember that its not being built today, we are probably looking 5-10 years in the future. So I doulbt when the dirt gets moved it could be done for under $300m but $600m could be realistic.
Another problem with the BC suites are where they are. Stacked suites at center court sell better than ones in the corner. Why you see Club Cambria in the end zone sinces they can't sell suites there.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on May 17, 2011, 07:35:48 AM
And then what do you do with the other 345 nights a year?
Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?
Quote from: Skitch on May 17, 2011, 05:39:46 PM
Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?
That was the assumption I was under as well.
If MU owned, it wouldn't just be used for MU events. Still probably not worth it, but I was in no way suggesting it only be used for MU.
Quote from: Skitch on May 17, 2011, 05:39:46 PM
Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?
So what do you do with the other 200 nights a year?
Quote from: Skitch on May 17, 2011, 05:39:46 PM
Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?
Yes...but since the Bradley Center is not making a great deal of money now, has deferred maintenance issues, and MU is in the education business...not the running-a-sports-arena business, what is the point? Just rent the damn thing.
MU is not in the professional-sports-arena-owning business. If it was something on-campus, that's a whole 'nuther story.
Personally, who cares if the Bucks leave? It wouldn't hurt Marquette nearly as much as the city of Milwaukee as a whole. Why, you say? Because we would still be in the friggin' Big East and would have nationally televised games throughout the COLLEGE basketball season. Pittsburgh doesn't have an NBA team and they can recruit. College football teams don't have pro-teams sharing arena space and that doesn't hurt.
Just because the two teams play in the same space doesn't make either one dependent on the other.
If the Bucks left, as a guy that doesn't care about the NBA, it'd suck for Milwaukee but I could care less. And if you think Wes Matthews or Steve Novak not attending what, two, three additional practices a year makes a bit of difference you are insane. Local guys will stay here in the off-season if they want to. The NBA ain't keeping Novak and Wes around. It's the fact they ARE local guys and are here.
But as far as MU, the arena is a nice place to play and doesn't do anything to NOT attract kids. The place would need to be made, maybe, a couple thousand seats smaller or they'd have to do something to improve the college atmosphere there. If it stays operated by the state, they won't take away seats on account of concerts and other stuff.
As a season ticket holder, I can tell you that I wouldn't want to see my prices increased by 25-50% just so the friggin' Bucks stay in town and get their new arena. That's my bottom line and I'm guessing, when you vote/think w/your pocket book, a lot of people on this post would agree.
The BC is just fine for MU...with or without the Bucks.
I was at the political and business leaders forum at MU Law this afternoon and the question about a new arena was brought up. All the parties agreed that the Bucks are import and a new arena would be necessary to keep them here long term. But, you could tell that they didn't think the support was there right now to build a new area. That could change in 5 years. Tom Barrett said that the he and the city has always been supportive for the idea of a new facility and behind the Bucks, but that everyone would have to pitch in. Tim Sheehy the head of the Milwaukee Metro Association of Commerce said that the city was in the exact same place with Miller Park and somehow that happened, so he saw it happening again. He also suggested continuing the Miller Park sales tax once it expires and using that to build a new area. That is something I am for but I am in the minority.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 16, 2011, 12:05:13 PM
Milwaukee can be such a nice, sensible city, but sometimes it can be too sensible for its own good. This is going to be a long, ugly process just like the Miller Park issue was. I can't imagine that if the State Legislature from 1996 could transport themselves to 2011, that the idea of adopting a 0.1% sales tax for Miller Park would be considered controversial at all.
If Milwaukee wants to be a big league city, this is the game that has to be played.
As for how this impacts Marquette, my feeling is that the only benefit we take from the Bradley Center is that it is an "NBA Arena." If it is no longer an "NBA Arena," it is too big, too quiet, and too multi-purpose for Marquette's needs.
I get where you are going, but there are also a lot of people in this country that feel public funds for sports arenas is out of hand. Here in L.A. we don't have a football team as a result of the absolute insistence that any football stadium that is built does not rides on the shoulders of taxpayers. Now, has Los Angeles suffered because it has no football? I'm sure some will say yes....I'll bet USC would argue hell no. That's why I think Marquette could come out gangbusters on this.
I've read over the years here and on the other board how absolutely critical it is to have the Bucks in town so they can hob nob with our players, have those NBA dreams rub off on them, Summer pickup games, etc, etc. I guess I pause and wonder how Louisville, without a NBA team somehow manages to survive without sharing a NBA team. Or Gonzaga or Purdue or Wisconsin or fill in most of the top 50 teams in the country that don't share a city with a NBA team. Or why Minnesota, TCU, SMU, Utah aren't better because they do have NBA teams in their city.
I lived in Milwaukee for over a decade. I've also lived in Cleveland and other similarly sized cities that have what I'll call a "complex" that they aren't legitimate cities if God forbid a team leaves. I honestly think that feeling is shared only by a small number for folks. Seattle is no less a major city without the Sonics. Los Angeles is no less a major city without a NFL team (and if we get one back, we're no better either except to a small minority of people). Louisville, San Diego, Anaheim, Tampa, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, etc....are they somehow lesser cities because they don't have a NBA team? Most people in this country would pick living in San Diego over 70% of other cities as just one example.
Quote from: bilsu on May 16, 2011, 12:06:48 PM
that is with Milwaukee being one of the few cities that has both pro basketball and baseball.
What? how about Chicago, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Denver, LA, Atlanta, Boston, New York, Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, Miami, Washington DC, Oakland\San Fran, Toronto, Milwaukee. That's like half the NBA right there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 18, 2011, 05:21:59 PM
I lived in Milwaukee for over a decade. I've also lived in Cleveland and other similarly sized cities that have what I'll call a "complex" that they aren't legitimate cities if God forbid a team leaves. I honestly think that feeling is shared only by a small number for folks. Seattle is no less a major city without the Sonics. Los Angeles is no less a major city without a NFL team (and if we get one back, we're no better either except to a small minority of people). Louisville, San Diego, Anaheim, Tampa, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, etc....are they somehow lesser cities because they don't have a NBA team? Most people in this country would pick living in San Diego over 70% of other cities as just one example.
I'll disagree with you here. LA and most of the West Coast doesn't have the desire to have sports teams like the midwest. In the midwest during fall and winter there is a LOT less to do. It isn't a complex, its the fact that if the Bucks leave there is just one less thing to do/watch/talk about in town. It isn't as if Milwaukee residents can walk to the beach in January to have a little fun. :)
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/122207299.html
I think a brand new arena for the Bucks would help MU. I think the Bucks leaving town would also help MU.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 19, 2011, 07:29:06 AM
I'll disagree with you here. LA and most of the West Coast doesn't have the desire to have sports teams like the midwest. In the midwest during fall and winter there is a LOT less to do. It isn't a complex, its the fact that if the Bucks leave there is just one less thing to do/watch/talk about in town. It isn't as if Milwaukee residents can walk to the beach in January to have a little fun. :)
Fair point Hards, there is a lot more to do in warm weather climates but there were certainly a number of cities I mentioned that aren't exactly tropical that are still major cities sans a basketball team. Seattle, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, all do just fine without the NBA. Now, some have the NHL and maybe that's why St. Louis is a pretty good hockey town and a great baseball town.
I can understand as a resident that if the Bucks leave or threaten to leave, it looks doom and gloom but the reality is that it's not. Kohl is retiring now so he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected for threatening to leave and pull more money from the public to support his team and a building. Would I love a new building for Marquette? Sure. Do I think the Bucks leaving makes Marquette basketball more attractive? Yes, to a point. The surveys I conducted while working there showed very little crossover of Bucks and MU season ticket holders or general interest. Same in my current role where we see two different fan bases (i.e. people that buy college basketball packages do not overlap much with NBA purchased packages) and that's largely why last month I stated they are two different games. The goal is still the same, put the ball in the hoop, but the atmosphere, the product, the participants, the rules are very different and attract different fan groups. The million question is if the Bucks leave, would some of these diehard NBA fans that weren't giving MU a look now decide to give the boys a try. Some certainly will to get their hoops fix, even if it's a different type of hoops fix. The question is how many.
At the end of the day, I doubt the Bucks leave but Kohl's retirement doesn't help that notion. He could sell the team and not worry about that legacy any longer.
I have not lived lived in Milwaukee for quite a few years and was just wondering IF the Bucks left would there be a threat to the bars/restaurants etc. in the area staying afloat.....or are they pretty self sufficient without the 40 or more Bucks games a year?
Well damn...now that the Roseboro thread is closed, how the hell am I supposed to turn this thread into a Crean versus Buzz pissing match?!
Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 19, 2011, 03:03:44 PM
Well damn...now that the Roseboro thread is closed, how the hell am I supposed to turn this thread into a Crean versus Buzz pissing match?!
The Bradley Center hasn't had the largest crowd in Wisconsin to watch a basketball game since Crean left.
Quote from: mupanther on May 19, 2011, 07:40:11 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/122207299.html
BC has a "shelf life of another 5 or 6 years".....are the walls about to collapse? Have termites invaded? I get the need to push his agenda, but that approach isn't going to fly with a number of people. I have no doubt most folks want a shiny new toy and MU, Milwaukee,the Bucks, etc can benefit from that. There is, of course, a trade off. Who pays for it, what other service \ interest group is put aside as a result, etc. The pols will have to fight that out.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 19, 2011, 03:17:13 PM
The Bradley Center hasn't had the largest crowd in Wisconsin to watch a basketball game since Crean left.
Clearly you're better at this than I am. Well done.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on May 19, 2011, 02:31:16 PM
I have not lived lived in Milwaukee for quite a few years and was just wondering IF the Bucks left would there be a threat to the bars/restaurants etc. in the area staying afloat.....or are they pretty self sufficient without the 40 or more Bucks games a year?
There would be a few bars such as Major Goolsbys and Buck Bradleys that I think would take decent hits that could threaten their viability. I know when I looked at renting a party room at Buck Bradley's this past year the first thing they look at is the BC schedule to see how busy they will be. But I don't think you would see 10 bars and restaurants right by the BC gone within a year just because the Bucks are gone even though it would touch thier bottom line.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on May 18, 2011, 07:33:59 AM
So what do you do with the other 200 nights a year?
Spanish O'Donnells, in concert! 200 nights only! Get your tickets now!
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 19, 2011, 07:29:06 AM
I'll disagree with you here. LA and most of the West Coast doesn't have the desire to have sports teams like the midwest. In the midwest during fall and winter there is a LOT less to do. It isn't a complex, its the fact that if the Bucks leave there is just one less thing to do/watch/talk about in town. It isn't as if Milwaukee residents can walk to the beach in January to have a little fun. :)
I agree with the weather factor, but also consider:
*The North Stars left Minnesota in 1993. The NHL didn't return to the state until the NHL was nearly irrelevant.
*Milwaukee - despite having built a hockey arena on spec - has never had an NHL franchise... wasn't even considered a contender in the last couple expansions.
*Indiana has an NBA team that has
twice in the past five years posted the worst attendance in the league. It hasn't been better than the 4th worst in that time.
*The NFL teams in Florida and Michigan struggle to avoid league-imposed blackouts for failing to sell-out games.
What's the common thread here? In locales where a particular sport is widely popular, the professional franchise struggles (or is non-existent) because it competes with the amateur version. In Indiana, for instance... why spend $100/ticket to go to Conseco when you can get quality high-school and college ball anywhere in the state for next to nothing.
Basketball will always play second fiddle to football throughout and third fiddle behind baseball in most of Wisconsin. But you can get your hoops fix on Friday nights at just about any high school in the state for a buck or two, at a D-III game for less than $10, or a D-I game for under $50. Why spend $80 to sit upstairs at the BC where Bango never visits?
Quote from: Benny B on May 19, 2011, 05:17:21 PM
*The North Stars left Minnesota in 1993. The NHL didn't return to the state until the NHL was nearly irrelevant.
There is more to the story of the reason the North Stars leaving the state. Namely sexual harassment charges vs. the owner by female employees. He had/wanted to get out of town. The Wild sold out every game (375 or so) since they started playing. The sellout streak ended in the middle of this season...hardly irrelevant. By the way not in any way a Wild fan here, just stating facts.
Is hockey really "wildly popular" in Wisconsin? I'm not trying to be snide, it's an actual question. Perhaps it's just because I don't follow it at all that I have no idea.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 18, 2011, 05:21:59 PMLouisville, San Diego, Anaheim, Tampa, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, etc....are they somehow lesser cities because they don't have a NBA team? Most people in this country would pick living in San Diego over 70% of other cities as just one example.
SD- had a basketball team, has an NFL team and an MLB team
Anaheim - MLB , NHL (MLS -kind of)
KC - NFL, MLB, MLS
Nashville - NHL, NFL
St Louis -MLB, NHL, NFL
Cincinnati - NFL, MLB
Columbus- NHL, MLS
Louisville - kind of a shithole
Without the Bucks, Milwaukee would have ONE major league sports team. That's the difference between the cities you've named and Milwaukee.
Memphis, Orlando, Sacramento, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville and Raleigh are the only cities with one major league sports team.
---
The problem with this conversation and the idea that the MMAC/Tom Barret are proposing is out of focus. First off the idea in increasing a tax is generally considered unfavorable. The 5 county miller park tax is more of an annoyance because the tax was created for the stadium, the stadium was built and the tax is still on the books. The idea that the new arena would be built at the park east, also wrong. Think SOUTH of the Bradley Center.
Milwaukee has 2 arenas, an underused theater and a convention center within a 6 block area, none of which are connected.
I believe the best move for the city of Milwaukee would be to combine the Frontier Airlines Center, the Cell and the BC into one complex. Get rid of the Milwaukee theater (4+ other stages in the area could cover their shows). One area for all of the teams and a convention center would open the door for development, including more restaurants and retail connected to the complex and would generate more revenue. Concerning the lesser teams (Ads, Wave, Mustangs) they could do what the Admirals currently do and only sell the bottom level tickets for most thinly games. The remaining land (and hopefully the park east) would be able to be sold off for other developments.
Without getting too off topic - a new area could even attract a new NHL team to the area. I've heard that rumor come up now and again.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 03:18:22 PM
BC has a "shelf life of another 5 or 6 years".....are the walls about to collapse? Have termites invaded? I get the need to push his agenda, but that approach isn't going to fly with a number of people. I have no doubt most folks want a shiny new toy and MU, Milwaukee,the Bucks, etc can benefit from that. There is, of course, a trade off. Who pays for it, what other service \ interest group is put aside as a result, etc. The pols will have to fight that out.
The problem is that the BC is not as profitable as other arenas and it makes it hard for the Bucks to compete. It isn't that it is falling down, it is that the way people attend games is much different than 20 years ago.
Quote from: Skitch on May 19, 2011, 05:41:29 PMIs hockey really "wildly popular" in Wisconsin? I'm not trying to be snide, it's an actual question. Perhaps it's just because I don't follow it at all that I have no idea.
Wildly popular? That's probably pushing it. The Admirals draw over 6,000 per game. If the city had a new arena along with a new NHL team, I don't think it's unrealistic that they'd double that figure. That said, that would only be good enough for 28th (or 3rd worst) in NHL attendance. I think to have a team be truly viable, Milwaukee would have to be able to expect around 16,000 fans per game. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a lot when they can't even get that many fans to a Bucks game.
Though to be fair, Marquette outdraws the Bucks by about 200 fans per game. The novelty of NHL hockey in Milwaukee might be enough to get 16,000+.
While it is literally true that milw would only have one major team if the bucks left, the packers are by and large milwaukee's team too. I notice that battle lines have already been drawn. I doubt the bucks stay after kohl dies since he has no children to pass the team to. And when it is sold it will be gone.
Yeah, the dude shoulda pulled an Arnold.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 19, 2011, 09:43:39 PM
Yeah, the dude shoulda pulled an Arnold.
We call it pulling a Spitzer
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 19, 2011, 09:39:46 PM
I doubt the bucks stay after kohl dies since he has no children to pass the team to. And when it is sold it will be gone.
Seeing as he has no children and it is obviously a huge priority to him to keep the team in Milwaukee, is there any chance he leaves the team to the city of Milwaukee in his will and the team is run Packers style?
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 19, 2011, 06:05:47 PM
SD- had a basketball team, has an NFL team and an MLB team
Anaheim - MLB , NHL (MLS -kind of)
KC - NFL, MLB, MLS
Nashville - NHL, NFL
St Louis -MLB, NHL, NFL
Cincinnati - NFL, MLB
Columbus- NHL, MLS
Louisville - kind of a craphole
Without the Bucks, Milwaukee would have ONE major league sports team. That's the difference between the cities you've named and Milwaukee.
Memphis, Orlando, Sacramento, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville and Raleigh are the only cities with one major league sports team.
---
You're having to bring in MLS teams to make part of your argument. I'm fine with the other cities you've mentioned....they're fine cities and don't suffer without them. I get that it would take Milwaukee down to one major league team, but the it's the NBA for crying out loud....it's one step below WWE. ;D When the league goes full blown lockout next year and at least half the season is wasted, let's see how Milwaukee does. I predict all will survive.
When is the stadium tax supposed to run it's course? 2015?
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on May 19, 2011, 02:31:16 PM
I have not lived lived in Milwaukee for quite a few years and was just wondering IF the Bucks left would there be a threat to the bars/restaurants etc. in the area staying afloat.....or are they pretty self sufficient without the 40 or more Bucks games a year?
The bars seem to be dying off by themselves pretty easily, Bradley Center or no Bradley Center.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 19, 2011, 08:23:25 PM
The problem is that the BC is not as profitable as other arenas and it makes it hard for the Bucks to compete. It isn't that it is falling down, it is that the way people attend games is much different than 20 years ago.
Oh trust me, I totally get it. This is why the BUCKS should pay to change that, not the taxpayers.
Or better yet, get the damn NBA to create a HARD CAP (as they should), split the revenues and that way we're not running around replacing perfectly good buildings every 15 years (like some cities) as they scream poor that they don't have enough suites.
At the end of the day, the Bucks are going to demand a pretty new shiny object with more suites, more advertising space, etc. It will do very well the first few years, but if the team isn't successful, those units will not go sold or will be discounted heavily to do so. Can the city of Milwaukee afford the high priced tickets, suites, advertising, etc that is going to be required? Isn't that just as big an issue?
Personally, I'm all for contraction. Some cities don't deserve these teams and if they can't stand on their own they should be dissolved.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 10:26:25 PMYou're having to bring in MLS teams to make part of your argument.
And? The MLS has three teams that draw 20,000+ per game with 16 teams. The NBA has four teams that draw 20,000+ per game (and none that come remotely close to Seattle Sounders 36,173) with 30 teams. In their last full seasons, the NBA drew 17,318 fans per game while the MLS drew 16,677.
The NBA may get bigger TV ratings and contracts, but in terms of drawing fans out to the stadiums, they are doing nearly as good a job as the NBA, and as only 5 out of 16 teams declined in attendance in 2010, clearly the league is on the rise in terms of attendance and will likely pass the NBA for average fans drawn per game within the next 2-3 years.
Quote from: Skitch on May 19, 2011, 10:18:00 PM
Seeing as he has no children and it is obviously a huge priority to him to keep the team in Milwaukee, is there any chance he leaves the team to the city of Milwaukee in his will and the team is run Packers style?
I don't think the NBA would allow that. The Packers ownership structure isn't allowed by the NFL any longer.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 10:34:52 PM
Oh trust me, I totally get it. This is why the BUCKS should pay to change that, not the taxpayers.
That's up to the citizens of Milwaukee and Wisconsin. As someone who does not live in the state (just like you), it is not up to me to determine how they "should" spend their money.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 10:34:52 PM
Personally, I'm all for contraction. Some cities don't deserve these teams and if they can't stand on their own they should be dissolved.
I don't disagree with this. As sports has become more and more a televised product, the idea of blanketing the country with teams is a notion that is a little outdated. The NBA and NHL could each lose a handful of teams and likely improve their product. MLB could also lose a couple. The NFL is fine the way it is, but should get no bigger.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 10:34:52 PM
Oh trust me, I totally get it. This is why the BUCKS should pay to change that, not the taxpayers.
Or better yet, get the damn NBA to create a HARD CAP (as they should), split the revenues and that way we're not running around replacing perfectly good buildings every 15 years (like some cities) as they scream poor that they don't have enough suites.
At the end of the day, the Bucks are going to demand a pretty new shiny object with more suites, more advertising space, etc. It will do very well the first few years, but if the team isn't successful, those units will not go sold or will be discounted heavily to do so. Can the city of Milwaukee afford the high priced tickets, suites, advertising, etc that is going to be required? Isn't that just as big an issue?
Personally, I'm all for contraction. Some cities don't deserve these teams and if they can't stand on their own they should be dissolved.
The Bucks can't afford the building. Its just a ludicrous argument. I don't know why everyone gets their feathers ruffled about keeping that small sales tax on the books for a new arena... But I guess a lot of people have a problem being taxed for anything and everything.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2011, 09:33:21 AM
The Bucks can't afford the building. Its just a ludicrous argument. I don't know why everyone gets their feathers ruffled about keeping that small sales tax on the books for a new arena... But I guess a lot of people have a problem being taxed for anything and everything.
Agreed. I am sure that many of the people from Racine County who were OUTRAGED that they were included in the taxing district now enjoy going to Miller Park...and many more watch on television. Honestly, do you know how laughable it would be to still have the Brewers playing in County Stadium? Would they even be around any longer?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 10:34:52 PM
Oh trust me, I totally get it. This is why the BUCKS should pay to change that, not the taxpayers.
Or better yet, get the damn NBA to create a HARD CAP (as they should), split the revenues and that way we're not running around replacing perfectly good buildings every 15 years (like some cities) as they scream poor that they don't have enough suites.
At the end of the day, the Bucks are going to demand a pretty new shiny object with more suites, more advertising space, etc. It will do very well the first few years, but if the team isn't successful, those units will not go sold or will be discounted heavily to do so. Can the city of Milwaukee afford the high priced tickets, suites, advertising, etc that is going to be required? Isn't that just as big an issue?
Personally, I'm all for contraction. Some cities owners don't deserve these teams and if they can't stand on their own they should be dissolved.
I agree with everything you said, with one change.
I know that modern amenities and suites help the "team" make money... but the "team" making money is essentially only beneficial to the ownership group.
I have no idea how/why this would work, but it would be interesting if a super rich owner (let's say Cuban) somehow chose to run his organization as a non-profit. I mean, in that scenario, I might be more willing for taxpayer dollars to go towards an arena. Right now, a new arena just opens up new revenue streams for the owners to make more money. I think the owners can/should get more creative than just begging the state to hand them a $300 building where they pay no rent.
With this said, I'm a hypocrite because I like Miller Park. Rats.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 20, 2011, 10:04:44 AM
I have no idea how/why this would work, but it would be interesting if a super rich owner (let's say Cuban) somehow chose to run his organization as a non-profit. I mean, in that scenario, I might be more willing for taxpayer dollars to go towards an arena. Right now, a new arena just opens up new revenue streams for the owners to make more money. I think the owners can/should get more creative than just begging the state to hand them a $300 building where they pay no rent.
Why would Mark Cuban, or anyone else, spend hundreds of millions on a team only to turn it into a non-profit???
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 20, 2011, 10:04:44 AM
I agree with everything you said, with one change.
I know that modern amenities and suites help the "team" make money... but the "team" making money is essentially only beneficial to the ownership group.
I have no idea how/why this would work, but it would be interesting if a super rich owner (let's say Cuban) somehow chose to run his organization as a non-profit. I mean, in that scenario, I might be more willing for taxpayer dollars to go towards an arena. Right now, a new arena just opens up new revenue streams for the owners to make more money. I think the owners can/should get more creative than just begging the state to hand them a $300 building where they pay no rent.
With this said, I'm a hypocrite because I like Miller Park. Rats.
Stadiums and Arenas (in general) create a lot of business. Without the Bucks 40 times a year, a lot of regular revenue stream would dry up downtown, and cripple it. A MINISCULE sales tax of 0.1% in 5 counties (honestly, I think MP and the new arena should be WI wide 0.1% sales tax increase) is spread out enough that no one feels it in their pocketbooks that much.
Think about it like this. If you were paying $100 for an item at home depot, instead it would cost you $105.10... instead of $105.00... really? We are going to get fired up over a DIME on every hundred dollars?... Meanwhile, a lot of people have no problem shelling out almost $2 for a bottle of filtered bacteria ridden tap water at the Kwik Trip... but I guess that is another argument.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2011, 10:31:41 AM
Without the Bucks 40 times a year, a lot of regular revenue stream would dry up downtown, and cripple it.
You seem to suggest that there is already a ton of revenue coming into downtown thanks to the Bucks. How many buildings in that area are vacant, and how many shuffle in and out new tenants that end up failing? I think you overestimate the existing economic impact of the Bucks. Is a new/continued stadium tax on 5 counties worth keeping the maybe-5 to -10 restaurants in business that are dependent on the Bucks?
I'm pretty sure that most studies show negligible results for the immediate direct economic impact of spectator sports.
http://firat.academia.edu/SebahattinDevecioglu/Papers/411779/Financing_Professional_Sports_Facilities
There is very little case to be made for public financing of stadiums, and yet the public continues to finance stadiums. For example, the public has contributed 83% of the money for the last seven arenas ($1.54B out of $1.93B)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/how-the-sacramento-kings-_b_836757.html
Quote from: Skitch on May 19, 2011, 05:41:29 PM
Is hockey really "wildly popular" in Wisconsin? I'm not trying to be snide, it's an actual question. Perhaps it's just because I don't follow it at all that I have no idea.
Just a quick clarification - I said widely popular, not wildly popular. Nevertheless...
Relatively speaking, yes - hockey is widely popular in Wisconsin. Let's be clear that I'm not talking NHL or the Admirals, but I'm talking about the sport in general. Further, when I say widely popular, I'm not implying that everyone owns a pair of skates or goes to the rink on the weekends, I'm simply saying that the amount of hockey being played in Wisconsin - at all levels - is much greater than it is in most other places in the US. I forget the stats from USA Hockey, but IIRC Minnesota & Wisconsin are typically #1 and #2 when it comes to registered amateur hockey players on a per capita basis (e.g. California has more hockey players than Wisconsin, but the percentage of population that plays hockey is much smaller).
For instance, look at some southern cities with NHL teams: Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa Bay... I don't think anyone would argue against the statement that hockey is much more popular in Wisconsin than it is in any of those places.
Soccer is widely popular. It's probably the most often played organized sport in SE Wisconsin for youngsters. That doesn't translate into butts in the seats for College or Pro soccer in Milwaukee.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on May 19, 2011, 05:31:00 PM
There is more to the story of the reason the North Stars leaving the state. Namely sexual harassment charges vs. the owner by female employees. He had/wanted to get out of town. The Wild sold out every game (375 or so) since they started playing. The sellout streak ended in the middle of this season...hardly irrelevant. By the way not in any way a Wild fan here, just stating facts.
Yes there is more to the story (
aside: as I mowed the lawn last night while wearing my - no lie - North Stars 1991 Stanley Cup Finals t-shirt, I thought to myself that Normy's wife just plain wanted the heck out of Minnesota and didn't give two sh*#$ that he was harassin' the ladies. In any event, I think the lawsuit's effect on the relocation is grossly overestimated; IMO the impetus for the move was 99% because the North Stars were stuck with the Met Center and other cities were throwing brand new facilities at Norm to entice him to move).
The bottom line is that pro-hockey left Minnesota - the state where hockey is king - and didn't return until the
NHL was irrelevant (I did not - nor would I ever - say hockey in Minnesota is/was irrelevant). Although, perhaps the irrelevancy claim is biased; I am not a fan of Gary Bettman and haven't followed the NHL since the North Stars went south.
Quote from: Benny B on May 20, 2011, 12:44:28 PM
I am not a fan of Gary Bettman and haven't followed the NHL since the North Stars went south.
I agree...not a fan of Bettman at all....I moved here after the team moved and I have more than a couple of friends here that either stopped following the NHL or moved on to following a new team and are still fans of that team and not the Wild (one of the worst names for a team in all of sports).
Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 20, 2011, 12:04:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that most studies show negligible results for the immediate direct economic impact of spectator sports.
http://firat.academia.edu/SebahattinDevecioglu/Papers/411779/Financing_Professional_Sports_Facilities
There is very little case to be made for public financing of stadiums, and yet the public continues to finance stadiums. For example, the public has contributed 83% of the money for the last seven arenas ($1.54B out of $1.93B)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/how-the-sacramento-kings-_b_836757.html
Sadly for me, I read the first paper... and it mostly discusses the effects that 'mega events' have on cities. There is little evidence in the paper to suggest that a new arena has a negative effect on the local economy other than the authors preposition. He does list sources in journals and books, but since I am sitting at work, I can't readily evaluate them... Additionally, I take issue with his claim that (I am paraphrasing) if there weren't a sports team in town the funds used by sports fans (as entertainment spending money) would be used on other local events like the theater, and restaurants, thereby decreasing local revenues. Really? Is he implying that theater attenders and live sports event attendees have a strong interest cross section? Where is the evidence of this? I just find that to be highly improbable.
I am talking strictly Bucks basketball.
Regarding the article in the HuffPo... I realize that the most effective way to keep a team's revenue high is to have a good team. Unfortunately, that can't be a reality for every team in the league... since there needs to be winners and losers every year. The article then discusses that an alternative to having a successful team to gain revenue is to build a new arena.
I guess I don't see the point that the article is trying to make other than a successful team makes more money... Frankly, I could have told you that before reading it, HS. :) What is next, an article telling me that a team in a larger market has a better chance at selling tickets than a smaller market team? :-P
here's a study done by Memphis regarding the economic impact of an NBA franchise. They show about $223 million annually.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/04/net-gain-for-memphis/
Quote from: oldwarrior81 on May 20, 2011, 01:05:08 PM
here's a study done by Memphis regarding the economic impact of an NBA franchise. They show about $223 million annually.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/04/net-gain-for-memphis/
"However, Gnuschke said that a large part of the spending from team and arena operations comes from Memphians -- resulting in a shifting of local spending patterns rather than new money being brought into the community."
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2011, 01:03:24 PM
Sadly for me, I read the first paper... and it mostly discusses the effects that 'mega events' have on cities. There is little evidence in the paper to suggest that a new arena has a negative effect on the local economy other than the authors preposition. He does list sources in journals and books, but since I am sitting at work, I can't readily evaluate them... Additionally, I take issue with his claim that (I am paraphrasing) if there weren't a sports team in town the funds used by sports fans (as entertainment spending money) would be used on other local events like the theater, and restaurants, thereby decreasing local revenues. Really? Is he implying that theater attenders and live sports event attendees have a strong interest cross section? Where is the evidence of this? I just find that to be highly improbable.
I am talking strictly Bucks basketball.
Regarding the article in the HuffPo... I realize that the most effective way to keep a team's revenue high is to have a good team. Unfortunately, that can't be a reality for every team in the league... since there needs to be winners and losers every year. The article then discusses that an alternative to having a successful team to gain revenue is to build a new arena.
I guess I don't see the point that the article is trying to make other than a successful team makes more money... Frankly, I could have told you that before reading it, HS. :) What is next, an article telling me that a team in a larger market has a better chance at selling tickets than a smaller market team? :-P
/tangent from discussion of the Bucks
The first article's primary criticisms on the estimate of economic impact come from:
Substitution - People spend money on ballgames instead of spending money on other things.
Crowding out - People who go to ballgames make it so that other people don't want to go out
Income multiplier - Much of the money that is contributed to the local economy (say a $10M salary) does not stay local.
My point is that there are a lot of studies out there that show negligible net impact on the community for public financing of stadiums. Instead of $200M for a new stadium, why not raise taxes and spend money on infrastructure development? The multiplier there is a lot higher. Why not raise taxes and cut the deficit? Why not avoid raising taxes altogether?
The second article I linked just to reference the dollar values. However, do you really think that the seven metro areas generated $1.5B in public value?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 20, 2011, 01:09:53 PM
"However, Gnuschke said that a large part of the spending from team and arena operations comes from Memphians -- resulting in a shifting of local spending patterns rather than new money being brought into the community."
Again, I just see this type of statement as faulty. Does he know that this (or at least some) isn't new spending? Did other sectors report losses in revenue since the arena went up?
I understand the concept of substitution, but it seems that these analysts are applying it too broadly.
QuoteMy point is that there are a lot of studies out there that show negligible net impact on the community for public financing of stadiums. Instead of $200M for a new stadium, why not raise taxes and spend money on infrastructure development? The multiplier there is a lot higher. Why not raise taxes and cut the deficit? Why not avoid raising taxes altogether?
I don't think that if the
main reason that cities are building arena/stadiums is to create revenue. I'm not sure the idea is to
make money. I think that people are willing to (the free market would agree with me here) to publicly fund arenas/stadiums to keep teams in town as a source of entertainment. I can agree with you that the building of these complexes doesn't guarentee economic success to the city, but saying that they have a negative effect is highly suspect.
Either way, sports teams tend to bring a certain amount of happiness and pride to the city/state they are in... which should be considered as well.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 19, 2011, 10:26:25 PM
You're having to bring in MLS teams to make part of your argument. I'm fine with the other cities you've mentioned....they're fine cities and don't suffer without them. I get that it would take Milwaukee down to one major league team, but the it's the NBA for crying out loud....it's one step below WWE. ;D When the league goes full blown lockout next year and at least half the season is wasted, let's see how Milwaukee does. I predict all will survive.
When is the stadium tax supposed to run it's course? 2015?
In only one of those cities is the MLS the 2nd team. Columbus. Their average home attendance is just under 10k.
The stadium tax is going to be continued through 2016 - 2018 actually. In 2007 the plan was to end the tax is 2014. the tax was started in 1996.
I think in this case we should look at the Brewers. They're a better team than they were in the 90s and since they built Miller Park. more people go to games. They've drawn over 2m fans every year since 2004, twice over 3m. 1983 was the only year the brewers broke 2m fans at County stadium.
I think that the same would hold true for the Bucks. A better arena and a commitment to winning made by Kohl and the management would attract more people to the games. And since there is a downtown arena that may provide some economic impact to the area bars and restaurants.
Fact is, especially in the east, they bucks could be a perennial playoff team, especially with a good draft pick or two and Michael Redd's contract off their payroll
---
Warrior07
tell me though. Honestly how is it living in a city without any sports teams? If at the very least sports are something to talk about and garner a little interest.
The BC brings in entertainment and basketball. I think the Bucks are an important part of Milwaukee and I'd love to see them stay. And this is coming from someone who saw 3 Bucks games this year, possibly equal to the amount of Bucks games I've seen in 10 years prior.
Ari, I didn't say Milwaukee shouldn't have any sports teams. I was referring to the Bucks. Surely you would agree that the economic impact, whatever it is, of the Brewers is substantially larger than that of the Bucks? It doesn't help that the Buck's season is during the time of the year when Wisconsin residents, as much if not more than anywhere else in the country, want to just stay in.
I agree that it can be fun going to a Buck's game. But the economic climate of downtown is already attrocious with the Bucks there. I don't see how a new arena building for the Bucks (if it was only for the Bucks/Admirals/MU) would change the surrounding area that much for a sustained period of time. Let's say 8 restaurants or bars exist now that would not be financially profitable if they left. Do we continue the 5-county sales tax to support these 8 restaurants, if the potential economic benefit of the Bucks is one of the main reasons for keeping them around?
Quote from: warrior07 on May 20, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Ari, I didn't say Milwaukee shouldn't have any sports teams. I was referring to the Bucks. Surely you would agree that the economic impact, whatever it is, of the Brewers is substantially larger than that of the Bucks? It doesn't help that the Buck's season is during the time of the year when Wisconsin residents, as much if not more than anywhere else in the country, want to just stay in.
I agree that it can be fun going to a Buck's game. But the economic climate of downtown is already attrocious with the Bucks there. I don't see how a new arena building for the Bucks (if it was only for the Bucks/Admirals/MU) would change the surrounding area that much for a sustained period of time. Let's say 8 restaurants or bars exist now that would not be financially profitable if they left. Do we continue the 5-county sales tax to support these 8 restaurants, if the potential economic benefit of the Bucks is one of the main reasons for keeping them around?
Straw man hypothetical?
Do you live in Milwaukee? Have you been downtown recently? It is hardly a ghost town. Go to Detroit, now that is desolate.
As for the substitution argument, I will trust the results from a peer-reviewed journal and a study that is consistent with the peer-reviewed journal. You can trust your feelings. Neither of us can prove or disprove how the analysis was done.
Also, I've never said that the impact is negative. Just that it's negligible. I happen to think taxes are fine and government plays an important role in our lives. I also don't think it's a smart use of taxes or government funds to support paying for a new stadium.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2011, 01:41:54 PM
Either way, sports teams tend to bring a certain amount of happiness and pride to the city/state they are in... which should be considered as well.
This is probably the strongest argument in favor of public financing for stadiums.
Despite the theoretical arguments, let me also add that I totally support public financing for the renovation of the BC or a new stadium. First, I don't live in Milwaukee, so they aren't my taxes. Second, Marquette will get to (somewhat) free-ride on any renovations. Third, I think the long-term downside for Marquette is a lot higher if there is not an improvement. So in a battle of my principles vs reality, go Marquette.
I didn't say it was a ghost town, though would you disagree that the area west of the river is attrocious? Just look at park east. The fact that demand for that area has been so low that nothing has gone up in years tells you a lot about the economic viability and interest in that area. Wouldn't surprise me if Wisconsin Avenue had a 50% commercial vacancy at the sidewalk level west of the river. If the Bucks bring so much economic benefit to an area, why is that area -- at best -- equal with the entire rest of downtown/Milwaukee: 3rd ward, Water, North Ave, etc.?
Is that a yes for you -- if eight restaurants are financially profitable today due to the Bradley Center, we should keep the Bradley Center? I am curious to see what your breaking point would be. There's no "wrong" answer. I would just prefer a much higher breaking point in terms of jobs and economic impact.
Quote from: warrior07 on May 20, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Ari, I didn't say Milwaukee shouldn't have any sports teams. I was referring to the Bucks. Surely you would agree that the economic impact, whatever it is, of the Brewers is substantially larger than that of the Bucks? It doesn't help that the Buck's season is during the time of the year when Wisconsin residents, as much if not more than anywhere else in the country, want to just stay in.
I agree that it can be fun going to a Buck's game. But the economic climate of downtown is already attrocious with the Bucks there. I don't see how a new arena building for the Bucks (if it was only for the Bucks/Admirals/MU) would change the surrounding area that much for a sustained period of time. Let's say 8 restaurants or bars exist now that would not be financially profitable if they left. Do we continue the 5-county sales tax to support these 8 restaurants, if the potential economic benefit of the Bucks is one of the main reasons for keeping them around?
I know what you're saying, but my point is even one or two teams can really make a difference.
Your economic debate is very hard to pin down. Yes the Brewers in direct comparison to the Bucks play more games for more people at a larger facility so there is more of a county/area wide impact but the Bucks (and other teams) play games at the Bradley center, much closer where you're trying to make your economic impact argument. You also seem to be arguing that either the Bucks have no economic impact, or have a negative one because downtown is so atrocious. I disagree completely. It may not be the best, its only two blocks but there is a reason those two blocks are as close as they are to the Bradley Center. A new arena (preferably a single one w/convention center attached) would bring in more people and more of them would go to Bars and restaurants in that area.
You're right, the weather is an issue, but the bucks still draw 15k per game (41 games) Marquette averages 16k in 17 games and the admirals average 6k per game (40 games) and their seasons are all played November-March/April. You have to concede that 98 games plus events really helps all the bars and restaurants around the Bradley Center area.
you know the park east is a different beast. The County Board has tacked on requirements for that land development that make it virtually impossible for anyone to want to develop that. Remove those barriers to entry and you'll have a more prosperous neighborhood.
Furthermore I think you're really undercutting the development of the 3rd Ward and 5th Wards in Milwaukee, as well as the entire east side (not just North ave). And you can't blame Wisconsin Avenue's troubles on the Bradely center entirely. You have to chalk some of that up to the mismanagement and failure of the Shops and Grand Avenue as well as the grossly underused convention center.
I was in Milwaukee last month for the first time in 2 years. The downtown area horrid. Once you get past old world 3rd (which is in decline) you basically have a wasteland. It may be better than Detroit, but it ain't good. To be honest, it was kind of a sad experience. On the flip side, our campus looks good and 'Tosa is a treat.
Quote from: warrior07 on May 20, 2011, 02:39:20 PM
I didn't say it was a ghost town, though would you disagree that the area west of the river is attrocious? Just look at park east. The fact that demand for that area has been so low that nothing has gone up in years tells you a lot about the economic viability and interest in that area. Wouldn't surprise me if Wisconsin Avenue had a 50% commercial vacancy at the sidewalk level west of the river. If the Bucks bring so much economic benefit to an area, why is that area -- at best -- equal with the entire rest of downtown/Milwaukee: 3rd ward, Water, North Ave, etc.?
Is that a yes for you -- if eight restaurants are financially profitable today due to the Bradley Center, we should keep the Bradley Center? I am curious to see what your breaking point would be. There's no "wrong" answer. I would just prefer a much higher breaking point in terms of jobs and economic impact.
The area west of the river isn't all that bad. Old 3rd street is a decent little area. I'm not sure there are really as many empty buildings as you think... unless I am missing a lot of them. As for Park East, perhaps the city just wants too much for the Park East land (I'm not sure) (oh, Ari answered this for me!). I would be very surprised if Wisconsin ave has a 50% vacancy rate... I don't live in Milwaukee, but I go there often enough. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 20, 2011, 02:30:50 PM
As for the substitution argument, I will trust the results from a peer-reviewed journal and a study that is consistent with the peer-reviewed journal. You can trust your feelings. Neither of us can prove or disprove how the analysis was done.
Also, I've never said that the impact is negative. Just that it's negligible. I happen to think taxes are fine and government plays an important role in our lives. I also don't think it's a smart use of taxes or government funds to support paying for a new stadium..
I didn't catch where he was citing figures from his substitution argument in his paper. It just seemed like he was creating what he thought would happen, and I, in turn, did the same. I am probably wrong.
You didn't say the impact was negative, the author said it has been in some cases.
Whatever the case, I think a lot of people would be very sad to see the Bucks move on. And the best way to keep them in town is to build a new arena using public funds by continuing the 0.1% sales tax.
One of the dumbest decisions Milwaukee ever made was to esstentially turn down Potowanami's request to place their casino in the Riverwest area. Could you imagine how cool an entertainment complex would be that included the new area, the casino, and the restaurants and hotels that go along with that?
Instead, the casino is in the butt ugly Menomonee Valley where it doesn't do the city any bit of good at all.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 20, 2011, 03:34:27 PM
One of the dumbest decisions Milwaukee ever made was to esstentially turn down Potowanami's request to place their casino in the Riverwest area. Could you imagine how cool an entertainment complex would be that included the new area, the casino, and the restaurants and hotels that go along with that?
Instead, the casino is in the butt ugly Menomonee Valley where it doesn't do the city any bit of good at all.
+1. Plus there would probably be room for the Harley museum somewhere downtown as well...
And Miller Park. But of course we can't do that because tailgating is TOO IMPORTANT!!!! God forbid we actually act like every other major league city in the world and pry open our wallets to get a brat and a beer.
Park East area development flash...
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/parkeast/Map/PEblocks.swf
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 20, 2011, 03:51:52 PM
And Miller Park. But of course we can't do that because tailgating is TOO IMPORTANT!!!! God forbid we actually act like every other major league city in the world and pry open our wallets to get a brat and a beer.
Not putting Miller Park in the downtown area -- a colossal mistake. The current stadium site would be ideally suited for mixed use development while the city would have reaped the economic benefits of a stadium nearer downtown. Such a shame.
Brats rule, apparently
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 20, 2011, 03:51:52 PM
And Miller Park. But of course we can't do that because tailgating is TOO IMPORTANT!!!! God forbid we actually act like every other major league city in the world and pry open our wallets to get a brat and a beer.
Honestly, I am fine with Miller Park where it is. Tailgating is a major part of the experience of Miller Park, and I think there would be far fewer fans at games if they couldn't tailgate.
Just my 2c.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 20, 2011, 12:04:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that most studies show negligible results for the immediate direct economic impact of spectator sports.
http://firat.academia.edu/SebahattinDevecioglu/Papers/411779/Financing_Professional_Sports_Facilities
There is very little case to be made for public financing of stadiums, and yet the public continues to finance stadiums. For example, the public has contributed 83% of the money for the last seven arenas ($1.54B out of $1.93B)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/how-the-sacramento-kings-_b_836757.html
I agree. So much of it is done as a result of emotion or pols feeling like their city is second rate as a result, so they throw millions to keep the team there so they aren't blamed for them leaving. Meanwhile the owners know this full well and sit back laughing at the absurdity of it all.
Quote from: oldwarrior81 on May 20, 2011, 01:05:08 PM
here's a study done by Memphis regarding the economic impact of an NBA franchise. They show about $223 million annually.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/04/net-gain-for-memphis/
First, note who commissioned the study. That's the problem with most of these, they are commissioned by someone to have a desired outcome. It's like the dairy assosciation commissioning a study that drinking milk is good for you.
Almost always those economic impact studies for stadiums or sporting events end up being total BS. We were involved in a bunch of these analyses over the years from firms like the Bonham Group, AEG, etc, etc. Same as the ones pols use to justify choo choo trains and all kinds of other nonsense and then when they don't pan out 10 to 15 years later they don't care or say so what, it's built...too bad.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/975.html
http://weeklypress.com/billion-and-counting-for-states-taxpayerfunded-stadiums-p2168-1.htm
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2011, 04:26:08 PM
First, note who commissioned the study. That's the problem with most of these, they are commissioned by someone to have a desired outcome. It's like the dairy assosciation commissioning a study that drinking milk is good for you.
Almost always those economic impact studies for stadiums or sporting events end up being total BS. We were involved in a bunch of these analyses over the years from firms like the Bonham Group, AEG, etc, etc. Same as the ones pols use to justify choo choo trains and all kinds of other nonsense and then when they don't pan out 10 to 15 years later they don't care or say so what, it's built...too bad.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/975.html
http://weeklypress.com/billion-and-counting-for-states-taxpayerfunded-stadiums-p2168-1.htm
I am just curious as to what your solution is, Chicos. Do you suggest that the owner pay for the new arena/stadium? What if they can't afford it? Should teams contract because owners can't afford to upgrade their venues?
Quote from: NYWarrior on May 20, 2011, 03:58:53 PM
Not putting Miller Park in the downtown area -- a colossal mistake. The current stadium site would be ideally suited for mixed use development while the city would have reaped the economic benefits of a stadium nearer downtown. Such a shame.
Brats rule, apparently
What would have been an
actual shame would be the drastic reduction in attendance Downtown Miller Park would have experienced, as the on-field product over its 10 year history has resulted in a whopping 129 games below .500.
With the Badge of Sub-Mediocrity the Brewers have sewn on their game uniforms, Miller Park is exactly where it needs to be to maintain itself. Put that park in downtown in 2001, that team would be averaging 13,000 today.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to realize that a HUGE chunk of people at Brewers games are not there to see un-competitive baseball, and sure as hell aren't there to buy $8 beers.
It's gotta be one of the only stadiums in MLB that has a squadron of parking lot security people kicking thousands of fans IN TO THE STADIUM night in and night out.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on May 22, 2011, 10:35:09 PM
It's gotta be one of the only stadiums in MLB that has a squadron of parking lot security people kicking thousands of fans IN TO THE STADIUM night in and night out.
Don't act like the same thing wouldn't be happening if the Cubs had a parking lot instead of a neighborhood of bars.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2011, 04:02:33 PM
Honestly, I am fine with Miller Park where it is. Tailgating is a major part of the experience of Miller Park, and I think there would be far fewer fans at games if they couldn't tailgate.
That may be the case....and frankly I don't care. I'd rather have less people who are willing to spend money in and out of the stadium, than more people who truck in their own beer, their own food and are too cheap to pry open their wallet during the game.
I have been to a number of the newer ballparks that were built in downtown locations and do not have tailgating (St. Louis, Cincinnati - when they were bad, San Francisco) and an NFL stadium (Indy) and the crowds showed up just fine. Hell, if you get 16,000 downtown in winter for a basketball game, you will get crowds down there on a nice summer evening for a baseball game.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 20, 2011, 03:47:14 PM
+1. Plus there would probably be room for the Harley museum somewhere downtown as well...
Harley originally drew up plans, and I believe started initial construction in the building where the old Brown Bottle (what up $2 import night!!!) in Schlitz Park was on 3rd and Cherry, but don't quite remember the reason why it didn't go forward. Was it something with the noise of bikes in a residential neighborhood?? Remember something like that...
As for Potowonami being where it's at, agree that it would have added development, but look at Detroit and St. Louis, both have downtown stadiums and casinos, and it is still DEAD in and around those areas on non-game days. And I dunno, I love to gamble, probably a bit too much...but they tend to bring in certain elements that add a grime to the surrounding area. Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 23, 2011, 07:47:57 AM
That may be the case....and frankly I don't care. I'd rather have less people who are willing to spend money in and out of the stadium, than more people who truck in their own beer, their own food and are too cheap to pry open their wallet during the game.
I have been to a number of the newer ballparks that were built in downtown locations and do not have tailgating (St. Louis, Cincinnati - when they were bad, San Francisco) and an NFL stadium (Indy) and the crowds showed up just fine. Hell, if you get 16,000 downtown in winter for a basketball game, you will get crowds down there on a nice summer evening for a baseball game.
I know what you are saying, but ultimately, having a good "game experience" will create it's own revenue with higher attendance and repeat business. Easy to park, affordable, retractable roof, good for groups/buses, etc.
You put the stadium downtown, sure, you will get 4 new bars and restaurants and some more bartenders and waitstaff jobs. Nothing wrong with those jobs and businesses, but I'm not sure it's the huge economic boon that we think it is.
It's just taking money out of the grocery/liquor stores, and putting it into a bar. I mean, how much money are we really talking about? Certainly it's not insignificant, but again, I don't think it's enough to justify the possible reduced attendance when the team goes bad. 20,000 people tailgating and shopping at the grocery store, or 6,000 stopping in for some beers before the game? (I'm just throwing out some round numbers, we obviously have no way of knowing).
Plus, there are a number of bars relatively close to Miller park that provide free shuttles, so there is still some economic benefits to the ballpark.
I guess for me, the tailgating and current location are part of the charm of the Brewers that make them somewhat unique. Most cities have urban stadiums now, which I'm sure the politicians and businesses love, but I'm not sure the fans love it that much.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 20, 2011, 10:25:28 AM
Why would Mark Cuban, or anyone else, spend hundreds of millions on a team only to turn it into a non-profit???
Certainly no owner is going to do it right now, but this era of disposable stadiums and "increased revenue streams" isn't going to last forever.
Public tax dollars can't keep feeding the beast. The business model is going to have to change.
Maybe instead of publicly financing new buildings, the owners could change their own business model to provide themselves and their corporations with increased tax benefits. Like I said, creativity is going to have to be part of the answer, not just blackmailing the city/state for a new arena.
At the end of the day, the team and the city/state are in a weird partnership to make $. The owner depends upon a profitable product, and that new profit model is based upon a publicly funded building. If the owner can't get a stadium to make the team profitable, he'll move the team.
I realize that public tax dollars pay for a lot of things (theaters, art museum, etc.)... but these stadium deals are directly profiting private ownership groups, not public entities.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 23, 2011, 07:47:57 AM
That may be the case....and frankly I don't care. I'd rather have less people who are willing to spend money in and out of the stadium, than more people who truck in their own beer, their own food and are too cheap to pry open their wallet during the game.
I have been to a number of the newer ballparks that were built in downtown locations and do not have tailgating (St. Louis, Cincinnati - when they were bad, San Francisco) and an NFL stadium (Indy) and the crowds showed up just fine. Hell, if you get 16,000 downtown in winter for a basketball game, you will get crowds down there on a nice summer evening for a baseball game.
I'm torn between thinking you're an angry old ass who doesn't like it when people have fun for under $8 per beer or a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because he doesn't want to tailgate.
either way, I'm glad a person like you wasnt involved in the location of Miller park.
there's nothing like getting a good baseball drunk on, grilling and hanging out at the game. Who cares if I don't get in til the top of the 2nd sometimes. I know I won't convince you but tailgating at Miller park is party of the experience. Hell it's kinda fun to just go and walk around the parking lot before a game
I just had a thought regarding the Bucks.
I wonder if Herb could be talked into leaving the Bucks in his estate, or even donating them during his lifetime, to a public charity of some sort. The sole purpose of the charity would be to build a new arena for the City of Milwaukee. Then when the new owner purchases the team, the charity would have the funds to construct the arena.
This of course means that he wouldn't have the $$ to give to family, or to other interests via his estate...but it might be the best way to keep the Bucks in the city.
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 23, 2011, 10:29:45 AM
I'm torn between thinking you're an angry old ass who doesn't like it when people have fun for under $8 per beer or a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because he doesn't want to tailgate.
either way, I'm glad a person like you wasnt involved in the location of Miller park.
there's nothing like getting a good baseball drunk on, grilling and hanging out at the game. Who cares if I don't get in til the top of the 2nd sometimes. I know I won't convince you but tailgating at Miller park is party of the experience. Hell it's kinda fun to just go and walk around the parking lot before a game
I think your post helps my argument quite nicely...thank you.
The problem with the Brewers is that they have too often catered to the fan such as yourself.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 23, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
I think your post helps my argument quite nicely...thank you.
The problem with the Brewers is that they have too often catered to the fan such as yourself.
Nicely done.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 23, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
I think your post helps my argument quite nicely...thank you.
The problem with the Brewers is that they have too often catered to the fan such as yourself.
How would catering to a different fan base make the team any better from a competitive standpoint? You admit it wouldn't improve attendance. It definitely wouldn't improve revenue from apparel or boost viewership needed for a better TV contract.
The team is regularly uncompetitive because it's a small market team that has made a bunch of bad personnel decisions over the years. When you're a small market team, there's just no margin for error.
I fail to understand why tailgating fans at a Brewers game are 'not real fans' while tailgating fans at a Bears or Packers game , or those getting warmed up at the Cubby Bear are just doing it as 'part of the experience'.
Hold on...why are you using quotes? I never said that tailgating fans are "not real fans." Knowing Milwaukee, they undoubtedly are great fans. I have absolutely nothing against the fans who go there to tailgate. (I'm not the one who starting throwing insults around either.)
The issue I have always had with Miller Park is that, if you are going to use the "stimulate the economy" excuse to build a stadium, then it was built in the wrong location. That's all.
Quote from: mugrad2006 on May 23, 2011, 10:52:43 AM
How would catering to a different fan base make the team any better from a competitive standpoint? You admit it wouldn't improve attendance. It definitely wouldn't improve revenue from apparel or boost viewership needed for a better TV contract.
You think that catering to the "young, cheap and drunk" market segment would bring in more revenue than catering to the "established with some money" segment?
I have an idea! Let's overly exaggerate each other's position on this manner, then rip it apart and call it dumb.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 23, 2011, 11:03:26 AM
Hold on...why are you using quotes? I never said that tailgating fans are "not real fans." Knowing Milwaukee, they undoubtedly are great fans. I have absolutely nothing against the fans who go there to tailgate. (I'm not the one who starting throwing insults around either.)
The issue I have always had with Miller Park is that, if you are going to use the "stimulate the economy" excuse to build a stadium, then it was built in the wrong location. That's all.
I think the argument for Miller Park is that between the stadium and Potowatomi it could help to revitalize the Menomonee valley (as opposed to a more general economic stimulation)... which hasn't happened yet.
Quote from: reinko on May 23, 2011, 11:26:49 AM
I have an idea! Let's overly exaggerate each other's position on this manner, then rip it apart and call it dumb.
This has to be the dumbest post ever. Calling everyone who ever posted on Scoop dumb, come on now.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 23, 2011, 11:10:17 AM
You think that catering to the "young, cheap and drunk" market segment would bring in more revenue than catering to the "established with some money" segment?
Wouldn't you say the brewers cater to both? Tickets range anywhere from $10 to $100 plus cheaper online?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2011, 04:26:08 PM
First, note who commissioned the study. That's the problem with most of these, they are commissioned by someone to have a desired outcome. It's like the dairy assosciation commissioning a study that drinking milk is good for you.
Almost always those economic impact studies for stadiums or sporting events end up being total BS. We were involved in a bunch of these analyses over the years from firms like the Bonham Group, AEG, etc, etc. Same as the ones pols use to justify choo choo trains and all kinds of other nonsense and then when they don't pan out 10 to 15 years later they don't care or say so what, it's built...too bad.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/975.html
http://weeklypress.com/billion-and-counting-for-states-taxpayerfunded-stadiums-p2168-1.htm
+1
Quote from: mugrad2006 on May 23, 2011, 07:27:36 AM
Don't act like the same thing wouldn't be happening if the Cubs had a parking lot instead of a neighborhood of bars.
Are you sure? Wrigley has an allure far greater than Miller Park. It's unknown whether, given the choice of hanging out in a parking lot outside Wrigley would be chosen over actually going into the stadium itself. Obviously, some would choose that, but how many?
For Miller Park, for thousands of fans, that answer is known.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on May 23, 2011, 01:19:18 PM
Are you sure? Wrigley has an allure far greater than Miller Park. It's unknown whether, given the choice of hanging out in a parking lot outside Wrigley would be chosen over actually going into the stadium itself. Obviously, some would choose that, but how many?
For Miller Park, for thousands of fans, that answer is known.
In Wrigley, the outfield bleachers would be like baseball in LA. Show up in the 3rd, leave in the 7th.
Quote from: MUBurrow on May 23, 2011, 02:18:39 PM
In Wrigley, the outfield bleachers would be like baseball in LA. Show up in the 3rd, leave in the 7th.
Highly unlikely since the bleachers are general admission and typically packed at least 90 minutes prior to the game.
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 23, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Wouldn't you say the brewers cater to both? Tickets range anywhere from $10 to $100 plus cheaper online?
Fair enough. The Brewers do some to attract families but the location of the stadium was catered to the young and drunk fanbase who likes to drink on the cheap. I know several Brewers fans who once fit into that demographic but they've grown up, gotten married and had children - children who they won't take to Miller Park because it becomes an obnoxious drunkfest far too often for their liking. Sure, there would still be drunk people if the stadium was downtown but I doubt it would be anywhere near as bad as it can get in a tailgating atmosphere.
Though it may not solve the location issue, winning solves a lot of things: attendance, concession sales, small business profits, etc.
When the SF Giants were hot last year, EVERYWHERE you went was black and orange. SF loves its team but when the push for the playoffs and championship were on, the love extended to the rest of the bay because winning = $$$.
When the Brewers turn things around, the people and $$$ will follow.
But let's face it: Milwaukee and WI are football first, then basketball, then hockey, then baseball.
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 23, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Wouldn't you say the brewers cater to both? Tickets range anywhere from $10 to $100 plus cheaper online?
I was going to add this. It seems to me like a Brewers game has just about every type of person/fan there. College kids, families, old people, young professionals, Freeway. Etc.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 23, 2011, 02:39:54 PM
Fair enough. The Brewers do some to attract families but the location of the stadium was catered to the young and drunk fanbase who likes to drink on the cheap. I know several Brewers fans who once fit into that demographic but they've grown up, gotten married and had children - children who they won't take to Miller Park because it becomes an obnoxious drunkfest far too often for their liking. Sure, there would still be drunk people if the stadium was downtown but I doubt it would be anywhere near as bad as it can get in a tailgating atmosphere.
The location of Miller Park caters to the young and drunk? How? They like to flow into Milwaukee quickly from their multitudinous locations in the western suburbs? I think a downtown location would have catered to the young and drunk a LOT more. Think Summerfest.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 23, 2011, 02:56:28 PM
But let's face it: Milwaukee and WI are football first, then basketball, then hockey, then baseball.
No way...Milwaukee is easily football then baseball with the other two a huge distance back. Hockey? Seriously?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 23, 2011, 02:39:54 PM
Fair enough. The Brewers do some to attract families but the location of the stadium was catered to the young and drunk fanbase who likes to drink on the cheap. I know several Brewers fans who once fit into that demographic but they've grown up, gotten married and had children - children who they won't take to Miller Park because it becomes an obnoxious drunkfest far too often for their liking. Sure, there would still be drunk people if the stadium was downtown but I doubt it would be anywhere near as bad as it can get in a tailgating atmosphere.
Any place that let you bring in booze caters to a younger heavier drinking fan base. Miller Park makes efforts for families to enjoy the game as well (alcohol free sections, Tuesdays, the more expensive seats etc)
I think your friends overestimate the amount of drunk people there. Friday and Saturday games... sure I think its a heavier drinking crowd but most week night games will be pretty tame. And the cycle will continue itself. Your friends kids will grow up and your friends will feel more comfortable taking them to games, my age group will have kids and settle down and worry about the hammered 20 somethings...
Quote from: Chili on May 23, 2011, 04:05:48 PMNo way...Milwaukee is easily football then baseball with the other two a huge distance back. Hockey? Seriously?
+1
Football is way out in front, but the margin between baseball and the rest is almost as big. Hockey is barely a consideration. Maybe up north, but certainly not in Milwaukee. Who's the draw? The Admirals? The Badgers? Not even in the discussion. NASCAR is bigger than hockey, and that's without any races coming to town.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 23, 2011, 02:56:28 PM
But let's face it: Milwaukee and WI are football first, then basketball, then hockey, then baseball.
That sentence is in the running for the most inaccurate thing I've read on Scoop. Milwaukee is a good baseball town.
Hockey isn't even in the equation. I'd argue soccer is more popular here than hockey.
Right now, Milwaukee ranks 12th in baseball attendance. Not bad for a franchise that has one playoff appearance in the last 30 years.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 24, 2011, 07:57:37 AM
Right now, Milwaukee ranks 12th in baseball attendance. Not bad for a franchise that has one playoff appearance in the last 30 years.
And the smallest market in baseball too.
Quote from: Chili on May 24, 2011, 08:05:22 AM
And the smallest market in baseball too.
per capita, Milwaukee supports the Brewers very well. Braves had crazy attendance, too. 3 million in late 50's.
Quote from: ringout on May 24, 2011, 08:15:49 AM
per capita, Milwaukee supports the Brewers very well. Braves had crazy attendance, too. 3 million in late 50's.
Well in the 50's Milwaukee was the 13th largest city in the US.
Well, at least for several pages this was about the Bradley Center / MU .... try to stay focused folks...
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2011, 08:31:39 AM
Well in the 50's Milwaukee was the 13th largest city in the US.
The Braves were outdrawing the Yankees in the late 50's. My point is, Milwaukee has always drawn very well compared to larger cities.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on May 24, 2011, 08:53:30 AM
Well, at least for several pages this was about the Bradley Center / MU .... try to stay focused folks...
The Bradley Center? I thought that thing was torn down to make way for the new downtown baseball/basketball/soccer/hockey/Marquette Football mega-multiplex stadiurena.
Let's be honest...Milwaukee and the rest of Wisconsin is a football town...period....everything else is so far distant the rankings don't even matter.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 24, 2011, 11:16:29 AM
Let's be honest...Milwaukee and the rest of Wisconsin is a football town...period....everything else is so far distant the rankings don't even matter.
agree to disagree.
I'd actually rank sports interest statewide as follows: Packers, Brewers, Badger football, Badger basketball (yes, I know this is our MU board; UW is just a much bigger school with many more alums), Bucks, MU Hoops, Admirals, UW Hockey, UWM basketball.
The tough call for me was whether MU basketball should be ranked higher than the Bucks. I know our per game attendance is higher but the Bucks plsy 41 home dates. Be interesting to know which team has higher TV ratings. Anyway, down that low in the pecking order for the Bucks won't get a new arena built. Miller Park was an easy call and Milwaukee is very lucky to have such a top notch ballpark.
Quote from: jsglow on May 27, 2011, 08:12:29 PM
I'd actually rank sports interest statewide as follows: Packers, Brewers, Badger football, Badger basketball (yes, I know this is our MU board; UW is just a much bigger school with many more alums), Bucks, MU Hoops, Admirals, UW Hockey, UWM basketball.
The tough call for me was whether MU basketball should be ranked higher than the Bucks. I know our per game attendance is higher but the Bucks plsy 41 home dates. Be interesting to know which team has higher TV ratings. Anyway, down that low in the pecking order for the Bucks won't get a new arena built. Miller Park was an easy call and Milwaukee is very lucky to have such a top notch ballpark.
If you are using statewide, I would switch Badger Football for Brewers Baseball. Southeastern Wisconsin may be different, but across the state, Badger Football would rank higher.
Quote from: MUMac on May 27, 2011, 09:00:24 PM
If you are using statewide, I would switch Badger Football for Brewers Baseball. Southeastern Wisconsin may be different, but across the state, Badger Football would rank higher.
You may be right. But 3.0 million fans in the seats counts for a lot. You are certainly true on a per game basis but there are only about 12 football games in comparison.
Quote from: jsglow on May 27, 2011, 09:06:22 PM
You may be right. But 3.0 million fans in the seats counts for a lot. You are certainly true on a per game basis but there are only about 12 football games in comparison.
Keep in mind - every game is a sell out. They travel extremely well to away games and bowl games. The passion. I do believe Wisconsin is a football first state - Packers and Badgers. The passion for the Brewers out state is not as great. Following and attending an occassional game, yes. Just not to the same degree.
Mea culpa. That's a West Coast perspective for you. Now you know how an "East Coast Bias" feels out here, but in reverse. ;)
I think Sultan is completely wrong about 13,000 fans are better than 40,000 tailgaters. One problem I have with Sultan's argument is that I think he has a false assumption that drunk brewers fans are rational. In theory, it would make sense that those tailgating wouldn't buy food and drinks at the game. I think it is the complete opposite. If I'm tailgating, I usually have a buzz and don't care how much I spend in the game or how bad the food is at the park. I usually end up buying a couple long islands and a brat.
If I don't tailgate, I usually throw in a pack of sunflower seeds and just enjoy the game not spending any money. If I'm sober I can't rationalize spending $25 on 3 beers and the empty calories associated with it. Nor the lack of nutrition in a sausage. I usually stop at the cousins on the way and get a $3 Grecian turkey sub. It's healthier and cheaper.
In short, drunk people waste money. Sober people are more frugal.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 23, 2011, 10:30:40 AM
I just had a thought regarding the Bucks.
I wonder if Herb could be talked into leaving the Bucks in his estate, or even donating them during his lifetime, to a public charity of some sort. The sole purpose of the charity would be to build a new arena for the City of Milwaukee. Then when the new owner purchases the team, the charity would have the funds to construct the arena.
This of course means that he wouldn't have the $$ to give to family, or to other interests via his estate...but it might be the best way to keep the Bucks in the city.
Kohl is worth $240 mil with the Bucks.A new stadium would cost close to $400 mil. Even if he snubbed UW, his family, and other charities by donating it all to the stadium, we would still have a long way to go.