MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Shanunu on May 04, 2012, 02:11:33 PM
-
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/kohl-says-the-time-is-now-for-a-new-arena-sq59ifg-150185605.html (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/kohl-says-the-time-is-now-for-a-new-arena-sq59ifg-150185605.html)
St. Francis - U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, said Friday that the time is now to find a way to finance and build a new arena to replace the Bradley Center.
And for the first time, he said he was willing to make a personal financial commitment toward a new facility, an amount he said would not be insignificant.
"We're no longer talking about in terms of some point in the future," Kohl said at the team's Cousins Center practice facility. "We're talking about plans to get it done."
"The time to start is now."
Kohl, who has owned the team since 1985, said the franchise was working on plans for a new facility to replace the aging Bradley Center, though he said no site is under discussion. "We are actively working on it, and we'll get it in high gear, I hope soon, on trying to accomplish our goal," he said.
Kohl said he could not speculate on how an arena to replace the Bradley Center, opened in 1988, would be financed. But he said it would probably be a combination of public and private funds.
Kohl conceded it would not be easy to come up with a plan, but pledged his support to make it happen.
"There is a need to get going on it and get it done," he said.
Kohl, 77, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Among his many charitable efforts, he donated $25 million to build the Kohl Center on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus.
Kohl said he would not speculate on the political dimensions of finding financing and getting approval for a new arena. He said he had not talked to any political leaders, but said other communities had been able to find ways to finance and build a new facility.
He specifically cited the experience in Green Bay, where the Green Bay Packers were able to convince community leaders of the need to expand Lambeau Field. The $295 million project, funded in part by a sales tax in Brown County, was completed in 2003.
"I believe we will have a shot at getting it done," he said. "The maximum effort will be put forth not just by the Bucks, but by the business sector and the public sector."
He said NBA commissioner David Stern and other league officials were happy Milwaukee wants to keep the Bucks in town.
"The league is cooperating with us," Kohl said. "They are happy to see that we want to make the effort. They support that. They are wanting to see us get it done. And I think that's good and sufficient. They don't oppose our desire and wish to make the effort to stay in Milwaukee."
Kohl said people understood there was a limited lifespan for the building. And he said people understood the ability of the Bradley Center to generate new revenue for its tenants, including the Bucks, was limited.
"Does the league know that? Yes, they understand that," Kohl said.
"And they probably would say, if they were sitting here, that without a new facility, Milwaukee's chances of remaining a part of the NBA are not robust."
Asked about his ownership of the team, Kohl said that, like other owners of professional sports teams, he is approached "several times a year" by people who might be interested in buying in or taking it over.
"Our franchise is no different than any other in that respect. I've had inquiries from several people over the years who would be interested in buying a part or all of the team. But that's not unusual in the sports business," he said.
Kohl specifically mentioned 2003, when basketball superstar Michael Jordan and he discussed the sale of the Bucks.
The Bradley Center does not receive any public tax support. It was built by the late Jane Bradley Pettit in memory of her father, Harry Lynde Bradley, co-founder and chairman of the Allen-Bradley Company, now called Rockwell Automation. It is believed to be the only major public assembly facility in North America that was built with funds underwritten through the philanthropy of a single family.
Kohl said that, while the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce was working to persuade local corporations to make sponsorship commitments to keep the Bradley Center viable over the next few years, the Bucks would look to sign a short-term lease with the Bradley Center. The Bucks played the lockout-shortened season without a lease.
-
He should over spend and have a winning team for a year or two, and then ask for public support. That is the way it works. I can't see much public and even business support behind this team getting a new stadium. I sure hope they don't increase the seating capacity, if they do build a new one.
-
Wow, I was a student with the Bradley Center opened by sophomore year. I only go to a game a year now at best. Is the Bradley Center really that bad to make the Bucks a non-viable franchise? Is it the size? Poor vending areas (merchandise, food, etc.)? Low number of suites?
-
Wow, I was a student with the Bradley Center opened by sophomore year. I only go to a game a year now at best. Is the Bradley Center really that bad to make the Bucks a non-viable franchise? Is it the size? Poor vending areas (merchandise, food, etc.)? Low number of suites?
I think low number of suites is the biggest thing--lack of revenue streams that other arenas have (although I'm not sure how easily the Bucks would be able to sell a bunch of high $$ areas).
-
It isn't just the number of suites, but the Bradley Center was build just a bit to early to offer some of the other premium seating options that other arenas offer. Hell if Miller Park can pretty much sell out all sorts of seating options, a new arena could do it as well.
-
Herb wants the public to give over more money to him? Maybe he should open his wallet and pay for a stadium himself. Typical socialist.
-
The BC is missing one thing: Retail space... restaurants, stores, lounges, etc. that are accessible to the public 365 days a year.
If you look at the new arena/stadium model, there's a huge push towards non-gameday revenue. Not only does the BC not have it, it is also not configured for it.
-
Herb Every Major Sports Franchise Owner wants the public to give over more money to him? Maybe he should open his wallet and pay for a stadium himself. Typical socialist.
-
I've spent some significant time studying stadium financing structures, athletic facility profitability, etc. The bottom line is that 99.9% of the sale pitch to the public sector about return on investment is nonsense. Stadiums never repay the community for their financial investment.
But, if you want the Bucks to stay in Milwaukee, the Bradley has to be replaced. And given other cities that would love to pony up the public $$ for a facility, it will take a substantial public investment to get it done.
-
The BC is missing one thing: Retail space... restaurants, stores, lounges, etc. that are accessible to the public 365 days a year.
If you look at the new arena/stadium model, there's a huge push towards non-gameday revenue. Not only does the BC not have it, it is also not configured for it.
That part is not going to benefit Herb Kohl unless he gets a piece of the action on the retail side. Also not going to sell more Bucks tix.
Herb's whole argument sounds like a kid who claims he could get better grades if his folks would just buy him a fully loaded, state-of-the-art Mac Book.
-
The Bucks will of course end up drafting either Tyler Zeller or Meyers Leonard neither of whom can shoot. I think the Bucks overperformed this year. Wish they would've tanked their season and tried to get a high pick (I would be happy with 8 or higher). This draft class is stacked, and unless we draft another stud (Zeller and Leonard are not studs) we will decline more. Jennings and Ellid don't seem like the loyal type, both already having rumors about them wanting out of Milwaukee.
-
Herb wants the public to give over more money to him? Maybe he should open his wallet and pay for a stadium himself. Typical socialist. billionaire sports franchise owner
fixed
-
Herb wants the public to give over more money to him? Maybe he should open his wallet and pay for a stadium himself. Typical socialist.
Do you people even know the definition of socialism? Good christ.
-
Forcing other people to pay for your livelihood because you can't make up the revenue voluntarily with your product seems like a pretty good start.
-
I do not see any reason to criticize senator Kohl on this. He is 77 and has more money than he needs, so he is not doing this to benefit himself. By buying the Bucks in the first place he saved the City of Milwaukee from losing their NBA team. The area was built for hockey and therefore does not provide the best atmosphere for basketball. It is still a nice area, but I would love a new one for MU to play in. The trouble is, we do not know where they will build it. It would be costly to tear down, but it would make sense to me to tear down the old Mecca Center and build a new one there. That would still be in walking distance of MU.
-
Forcing other people to pay for your livelihood because you can't make up the revenue voluntarily with your product seems like a pretty good start.
typically, if you don't know, the best thing to do is look it up.
FWIW, Herb doesn't need the Bucks to make money since he has a ton. He is the richest senator in the US.
It is commonplace for cities to help finance the building of an arena. Cities that don't (watch what happens in Minnesota for the Vikings) may watch their team move out. While the city does contribute quite a bit of money for the building, they also stand to gain a lot. Jobs from building, maintaining, and running the arena can't be overlooked... nor can the opportunity to have great concerts and events take place.
-
Yes, it is commonplace for a socialist prick like Herb to demand that people fund their arenas. No surprise there. It happens with just about every sports franchise. The people of Milwaukee should turn Herb down. They've already demonstrated that they don't want his product.
-
If you don't buy a new stadium, someone else will, and then you (the taxpayer) end up paying for a new stadium down the line in the hopes of attracting a new team. Thats what happend to seattle, and pretty much every other sports team that left ever. unless you don't think think milwaukee wants or deserves a pro basketball team, they should just build a new arena and save the team for the time being and don't pay the higher cost of a stater-of-the-arter stadium without kohl kicking in anything in the future.
-
why not ask potowatomi to sponsor/fund the new stadium?
a new stadium i would think would help out the city -- increase the value of everything around it. i think the city should help fund a new stadium, it happens everywhere.
but this guy should know how to raise money for something. of course it should be a combination of public and private funds. that's how these things go
-
Yes, it is commonplace for a socialist prick like Herb to demand that people fund their arenas. No surprise there. It happens with just about every sports franchise. The people of Milwaukee should turn Herb down. They've already demonstrated that they don't want his product.
hope you don't have a degree from mu because you have no idea what a socialist even is. that said, i didn't realize bush also met your standard of a socialist. politically herb kohl may be many things...a prick isn't one of them. he's done more for others than you'll ever do in your lifetime.
-
.
-
I still don't see why the Bradley Center couldn't be renovated to fit all those extra revenue providing features they're looking for (retail, restaurants, bars, hotels, etc...). They could tear down the adjacent parking ramp and build something there, expand to the north, or build out into the space with the glass atriums. They could also recongifure the lower bowl to provide more club seating options and eliminate the gaps in corners and behind the baskets. I can't see the need for that many more suites, there are already a lot of empty one the way it is. They could even convert one of the upper-deck end-zones entirely into suites/club areas if they wanted.
-
I still don't see why the Bradley Center couldn't be renovated to fit all those extra revenue providing features they're looking for (retail, restaurants, bars, hotels, etc...). They could tear down the adjacent parking ramp and build something there, expand to the north, or build out into the space with the glass atriums. They could also recongifure the lower bowl to provide more club seating options and eliminate the gaps in corners and behind the baskets. I can't see the need for that many more suites, there are already a lot of empty one the way it is. They could even convert one of the upper-deck end-zones entirely into suites/club areas if they wanted.
What you just proposed costs more money than if they just built a new arena.
-
What you just proposed costs more money than if they just built a new arena.
Not to mention that it would take more than a year to complete, and there aren't any temporary home options for MU and the Bucks.
-
hope you don't have a degree from mu because you have no idea what a socialist even is. that said, i didn't realize bush also met your standard of a socialist. politically herb kohl may be many things...a prick isn't one of them. he's done more for others than you'll ever do in your lifetime.
Bush also was a socialist. And Herb hasn't done jack sh!t for anyone, just like any other lifetime pol in DC.
-
Have someone draw up an enticing blueprint and get some interest from the NHL teams that is looking to move. The community and sponsor support is more likely to fly for that than the Bucks. Nobody cares about the Bucks.
-
What you just proposed costs more money than if they just built a new arena.
Just what I was thinking when I read it. It's a bitch, but renovation evidently is a real construction pain.
In Memphis, the Pyramid is sitting idle because building a new basketball area was much cheaper than renovating the Pyramid. They are seriously trying to convert it into a huge Bass Pro shop. Pretty shocking when one considers the size of the place.
-
Herb wants the public to give over more money to him? Maybe he should open his wallet and pay for a stadium himself. Typical socialist.
Typical ill-informed poster.
-
Bush also was a socialist. And Herb hasn't done jack sh!t for anyone, just like any other lifetime pol in DC.
you should really understand the word socialist first. was kohl's a socialist idea? something tells me kohl played the free market economy better than anyone on this board. he's also done more for mu than anyone on this board just by supporting an nba franchise in milwaukee. if you're advocating for no new arena and no nba team then continue to feel that way about kohl. my hope is he puts up big $$$ and the community puts up $$$ as well to get something done. like his politics or not...he's a pretty good guy. i'll eat a sully's burger with him anytime.
-
I heard Poto wanted to help with a new arena......but not downtown. City leaders insisted on a downtown arena and that shipped has now sailed.
Also, Kohl is one of the "poorest" NBA owners. He is worth about $300 million with most of it being the Bucks. He doesn't have enough money to pay for a $400 million arena, unless he dies and completely neglects nephews/nieces, his charities, and alma maters.
I would support a tax, personally. However, I see no way in hell of this passing. Politicians lost their jobs over Miller Park. People still complain about it even the team has been very successful (given market) and brings a TON to local bars and clothing stores. There's a different between hand outs and investing in your city. Just because public money goes towards the project, the tax payers aren't necessarily getting screwed.
I think Minne put together a study that should just between game ticket/food/clothing sales and income tax, the city would make up all money it gave to the team. Not to mention making a more marketable city overall.
-
He should over spend and have a winning team for a year or two, and then ask for public support. That is the way it works. I can't see much public and even business support behind this team getting a new stadium. I sure hope they don't increase the seating capacity, if they do build a new one.
Lol, you do realize Kohl's Bucks are constantly at the Luxury Tax threshold, in the top 3rd in salaries, had some of the highest paid coaches in Karl and Skiles, and loses money every that comes from Kohl's pockets?
You can say A LOT of bad qualities of Herb Kohl as owner of the Bucks (meddling, striving to be mediocre, etc) but spending is not one of them. Totally misinformed comment.
-
just pull a selig and get charlie sykes and JS to support you...hell the guy looking to take kohl's seat is the one that made miller park possible.
-
I think Minne put together a study that should just between game ticket/food/clothing sales and income tax, the city would make up all money it gave to the team. Not to mention making a more marketable city overall.
So related to the benefit arguments, studies have debunked most of them. The issue with the city making the money back doesn't work, because sports franchises have been found to not bring new money into areas. They just alter the way that disposable income is actually spent in those areas. So while a new Bucks might be able to be shown to generate more income than the Bradley Center Bucks, those aren't new dollars. An in depth study would likely show that money to come from other possible destinations for disposable income.
Similarly, the jobs argument falls pretty flat as studies have shown stadiums boost only low income or temporary employment statistics. Netting out the area's employment numbers show negligible change with or without the stadium.
All that being said, I would be all for a new stadium to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee. There are a lot of intangible benefits to a team, city recognition and a sense of community unification among them. So depending on the private vs public numbers, I think a reasonable deal could get done.
-
I heard Poto wanted to help with a new arena......but not downtown. City leaders insisted on a downtown arena and that shipped has now sailed.
Think Milwaukee realized they screwed up by not putting Miller Park downtown. Just think of all the revenue that would have gone to downtown businesses alone in the last 4 years.
-
why not ask potowatomi to sponsor/fund the new stadium?
a new stadium i would think would help out the city -- increase the value of everything around it. i think the city should help fund a new stadium, it happens everywhere.
but this guy should know how to raise money for something. of course it should be a combination of public and private funds. that's how these things go
The public won't finance the red-headed step child, so I think it's Potawatomi stepping up or the Bucks are gone. They are really the only one that could finance it and if they built it by the casino it would be a win-win for the teams and the casino. They have by far the biggest "tourist" attraction with nearly 7 million per year. An arena there for sports/entertainment would be great cross promotion bringing more to events and more to the casino.
While the downtown would probably lose money, it would pale in comparison to if the Bucks left entirely. The move would bring in a lot of tax dollars and add to what is already the biggest employer in Milwaukee county. Milwaukee could actually benefit greatly from such a move. The casino is embarrassingly poorly marketed and more attention could bring in a lot of money to the city. At over 780,000 sq ft it is BY FAR the largest casino in America...and it may actually even be the largest casino in the world in terms of gambling space.
I think it's time to embrace Potawatomi. It's a sleeping giant that can bring in a lot more money 24/7. That PR team should start marketing it as the largest casino in the USA/WORLD...it would probably get more people in the door to check the place out.
-
Bush also was a socialist. And Herb hasn't done jack sh!t for anyone, just like any other lifetime pol in DC.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0ZtTE4ny-hweWKVgny4fYUyUYeXOBMFoTWof13gIlowsglrgq)
-
Think Milwaukee realized they screwed up by not putting Miller Park downtown. Just think of all the revenue that would have gone to downtown businesses alone in the last 4 years.
True, but was there a spot for it? Not saying no, I'm just curious. I wasn't in Milwaukee at the time. Too bad we couldn't have combined the projects and had the 2 stadiums separated by a street of bars. It would have really brought some life downtown and would be a constant activity with both winter/summer sports. Would've taken a ton of planning that Milwaukee isn't capable of doing. They almost got the Bradley Center funding pulled by the Petite family for lack of organization and arguments on how to build the BC.
-
The public won't finance the red-headed step child, so I think it's Potawatomi stepping up or the Bucks are gone. They are really the only one that could finance it and if they built it by the casino it would be a win-win for the teams and the casino. They have by far the biggest "tourist" attraction with nearly 7 million per year. An arena there for sports/entertainment would be great cross promotion bringing more to events and more to the casino.
While the downtown would probably lose money, it would pale in comparison to if the Bucks left entirely. The move would bring in a lot of tax dollars and add to what is already the biggest employer in Milwaukee county. Milwaukee could actually benefit greatly from such a move. The casino is embarrassingly poorly marketed and more attention could bring in a lot of money to the city. At over 780,000 sq ft it is BY FAR the largest casino in America and by a WIDE margin...and it may actually even be the largest casino in the world in terms of gambling space.
I think it's time to embrace Potawatomi. It's a sleeping giant that brings in money 24/7.
My understanding is that Poto offered but now it's too late. I think they invested too much into their hotel to buy land and a stadium for the Bucks.
-
Think Milwaukee realized they screwed up by not putting Miller Park downtown. Just think of all the revenue that would have gone to downtown businesses alone in the last 4 years.
Absolutely right. 'Cept Buddy, hands down, would have nothin' to hear of it.
-
dies and completely neglects nephews/nieces, his charities, and alma maters.
I had zero awareness of Herb Kohl so I googled him. I thought he owned the grocery & dept stores (we have them up here in Seattle) but he and his brother sold out to BATUS 40 years ago. I also thought he was worth a lot more than he is. Most surprising is that he has always flown solo and has no offspring. There are a lot of links to suggestions about his personal life and preferences. Thought the nickname "Dairy Queen" was rather funny.
-
I had zero awareness of Herb Kohl so I googled him. I thought he owned the grocery & dept stores (we have them up here in Seattle) but he and his brother sold out to BATUS 40 years ago. I also thought he was worth a lot more than he is. Most surprising is that he has always flown solo and has no offspring. There are a lot of links to suggestions about his personal life and preferences. Thought the nickname "Dairy Queen" was rather funny.
Liberal 80-year-old senator that never married.....not that there is anything wrong with that.
Also, I think Kohl has been a great representative of Wisconsin/Milwaukee, but his businesses haven't been successful. He inherited Kohl's they went south, he sold them, and then they took off. The Bucks went completely down hill since he took over and part of it is because of his ownership style. For his part, he does care a lot about the city/team and has put his money where his mouth is in that regards.
-
Liberal 80-year-old senator that never married.....not that there is anything wrong with that.
...his businesses haven't been successful. He inherited Kohl's they went south, he sold them, and then they took off. The Bucks went completely down hill since he took over and part of it is because of his ownership style.
Was Dairy Queen part of his business portfolio? Seems he is known by that call sign.
-
Was Dairy Queen part of his business portfolio? Seems he is known by that call sign.
OMG! He might like guys! Hee Hee! Everyone look, it might be one of those gays!
-
Isn't there some kind of no-politics rule? I mean, why bother when we can hide anonymity on the internet and lob equally nonsensical assertions at each other left and right.
-
also, the only reason I want the Bucks to stay in mke is so MU can have a nice arena to play in. Without that, I wouldn't spend a second caring if the NBA left.
-
Kohl is gay?
Always wondered how Larry Harris got GM job, must've been his lover.
-
OMG! He might like guys! Hee Hee! Everyone look, it might be one of those gays!
I could care less about his personal preferences. As one who lives in a world of funny call signs I happen to think Dairy Queen is funny. I appreciate the wit.
Here are the call signs of some buds:
"Cleat" Torres
"Ima" Cummin
"Skid" Roe
"Dirty" Sanchez
"All Beef" Franks
"Rabbi" Gonzalez (I have no idea as he's not Jewish)
"Jeter" Bush
"Sloppy" Sechands
"Bearded" Klamm
"Hair" Pye
"Chris" Coe
"Horse" Koch
Of course, you might not think any of that is funny but then I could not possible expect you to have any understanding of the world of fighter pilots and the irreverence our occupation demands. Big difference between selling tires and war fighting.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011189,00.html
-
Yeah, some of the cats in my job go by:
Helen Bedd
Jack Mehoff
Hugh G. Recsion
Sure, we're all really normal everyday folks.
-
As a half blood member of the Wisconsin Slapaho tribe I was given the name Liwanu at birth, which means "man with elephant trunk in pants"
-
Yeah, some of the cats in my job go by:
Helen Bedd
Jack Mehoff
Hugh G. Recsion
Sure, we're all really normal everyday folks.
The call signs I listed are real and painted on the sides of our aircraft (including rank and first name...ie Maj Jim "All Beef" Franks) Call signs have been part of the Aviator Warrior Ethos since WWI. I fear that the continuing pussification of America will bring an end to this proud tradition.
Damn that Donna Shalala. Damn her anyway!
-
just pull a selig and get charlie sykes and JS to support you...hell the guy looking to take kohl's seat is the one that made miller park possible.
Interestingly, Selig's plan was for a sports lottery to pay for the stadium. Those not interested in paying for same simply didn't have to play the lottery. Zero tax money was to be spent on the construction and maintainence. Sadly, the referendum was voted down (sinful ya know) and the 5 county tax was instituted.
Downtown stadia suck IN MY OPINION. You can't tailgate parked 7 blocks away on Cherry street. Also parking was and is nonexistent. Miller Park is awesome and would have been much better had the tax not given politicians a voice (cut out the air, sliding window walls rather than fixed, clock tower, air conditioning, etc.). Also the suites and party rooms are far from sold out. Support of that nature demands a robust economy or corporate sponsers tighten purse strings. Further, without the parking lots, the revenue stream was not nearly strong enough to sustain a major league team with the salary necessary to field any kind of respectable team.
As to Herbie, somebody please drag him to a Kohl's and buy him some clothes. Then, take him to a barber for a decent haircut. My God, he's a US Senator! How lucky he is that his dad started Kohl's.
-
Yes Augie, some dudes have won the sperm lottery.
-
The call signs I listed are real and painted on the sides of our aircraft (including rank and first name...ie Maj Jim "All Beef" Franks) Call signs have been part of the Aviator Warrior Ethos since WWI. I fear that the continuing pussification of America will bring an end to this proud tradition.
Damn that Donna Shalala. Damn her anyway!
What's your call sign?
-
Bush also was a socialist. And Herb hasn't done jack sh!t for anyone, just like any other lifetime pol in DC.
Ron Paul 2012, aina?
-
Herb is out of his mind. Maybe it's time for a senility check. Here's the reasons:
1) The Bucks never sell out.
2) Marquette only sells out about four or five games a year.
3) There's no way there's a demand for any more suites. With the Packers, Badgers and Brewers plus the lack of any major corporate headquarters in Milwaukee, save for NML, the demand for suites has been filled.
4) When they built the Bradley Center in the 1980s, both the Bucks and Warriors sold out almost every night. There were NO suites in the Arena and there was plenty of fertile ground for an NBA to move. Besides Seattle, is there anyplace in America that doesn't have a team that the Bucks would be better off in? I don't think so.
Folks, we have to ask ourselves, is this really how we want to expend public funds and obligate the State of Wisconsin and the City of Milwaukee? I think you tell Herbie, "lump it old boy. You're worth millions... you pay for it!"
-
Folks, we have to ask ourselves, is this really how we want to expend public funds and obligate the State of Wisconsin and the City of Milwaukee? I think you tell Herbie, "lump it old boy. You're worth millions... you pay for it!"
i could give a list of initiatives funded by thompson, doyle, and walker that i'd glady eliminate in replacement of a new arena in milwaukee. that said, there's only one herbie in wisconsin rich enough to build an arena, and it's not the one that owns the bucks. it may be mu who has to lump it up if the bc goes to hell with no replacement.
-
i there's only one herbie in wisconsin rich enough to build an arena, and it's not the one that owns the bucks. it may be mu who has to lump it up if the bc goes to hell with no replacement.
Well his wife is on the Board of Trustees, although if she is one of the ones advocating doomsday for MU basketball, we could probably just play in the Al.
-
i could give a list of initiatives funded by thompson, doyle, and walker that i'd glady eliminate in replacement of a new arena in milwaukee. that said, there's only one herbie in wisconsin rich enough to build an arena, and it's not the one that owns the bucks. it may be mu who has to lump it up if the bc goes to hell with no replacement.
The BC going to hell might be the best thing that could happen to MU. New on campus basketball stadium, here we come.
-
Was it the cost of building a new stadium on campus that kept it from happening when the Al was built? I've always wondered why they decided on making it a practice facility (besides women's basketball) instead of a full-fledged arena.
-
Why didn't Herb announce this before he decided not to run for re-election this year? (won't use teal or bolded)
-
What's your call sign?
Crash
-
also, the only reason I want the Bucks to stay in mke is so MU can have a nice arena to play in. Without that, I wouldn't spend a second caring if the NBA left.
I have no way of knowing, but I always felt having an NBA team near MU was a recruiting advantage. Option 1, would be not to build a new arena and the Bucks eventually leave, which I believe would negatively effect MU recruiting. Option 2 build a new arena (assuming MU gets to use it) and it should help MU recruiting. There is practically no reason for a recruit to want to come to Milwaukee as it is now. Just look how Crean's recruiting has picked up at IU.
-
I have no way of knowing, but I always felt having an NBA team near MU was a recruiting advantage. Option 1, would be not to build a new arena and the Bucks eventually leave, which I believe would negatively effect MU recruiting. Option 2 build a new arena (assuming MU gets to use it) and it should help MU recruiting. There is practically no reason for a recruit to want to come to Milwaukee as it is now. Just look how Crean's recruiting has picked up at IU.
Crean's recruiting has picked up and it helped that he hired a staffer initially who's father operated a high powered AAU program in the Indiana Elite program. Crean has signed 9 players out of that program in Hulls, Capobianco, Etherington, Zeller and 5 incoming freshman. Crean has also tapped into the state of Indiana as he should and let's be honest, Marquette isn't the first name off of the tongues of most Wisconsin instate players and this state doesn't produce the number of high major prospects annually that the state of Indiana does and I'm willing to bet that was the #1 reason Crean went to Indiana.
I won't say Milwaukee is as bad as you make it sound and Marquette is still a very good name in college basketball. It isn't Indiana and we all know that and Crean is the first coach in awhile at that school who is taking advantage of the history and the location.
-
I think MKE is great, and it has a lot to offer. But so do a lot of schools with better weather. Especially if the new administration wants to move in a North Korean-disciplinarian direction, then why not go to a school where there aren't rules that get enforced that has nice sunny weather in January?
-
Was it the cost of building a new stadium on campus that kept it from happening when the Al was built? I've always wondered why they decided on making it a practice facility (besides women's basketball) instead of a full-fledged arena.
Maybe because
1. A perfectly good arena already existed six blocks away
2. There is not room on campus to build it
3. Yeah, it would have exponentially increased the cost.
-
Herb is out of his mind. Maybe it's time for a senility check. Here's the reasons:
1) The Bucks never sell out.
2) Marquette only sells out about four or five games a year.
3) There's no way there's a demand for any more suites. With the Packers, Badgers and Brewers plus the lack of any major corporate headquarters in Milwaukee, save for NML, the demand for suites has been filled.
4) When they built the Bradley Center in the 1980s, both the Bucks and Warriors sold out almost every night. There were NO suites in the Arena and there was plenty of fertile ground for an NBA to move. Besides Seattle, is there anyplace in America that doesn't have a team that the Bucks would be better off in? I don't think so.
Folks, we have to ask ourselves, is this really how we want to expend public funds and obligate the State of Wisconsin and the City of Milwaukee? I think you tell Herbie, "lump it old boy. You're worth millions... you pay for it!"
I'm glad everything is so simple in your mind.
-
Maybe because
1. A perfectly good arena already existed six blocks away
2. There is not room on campus to build it
3. Yeah, it would have exponentially increased the cost.
4. The AL was just throw away money anyway
-
They do need to build a new facility and I think its the perfect time to create a cutting edge facility. Yes it is a good idea for taxes to help defray costs but they can be structured in such a way that they are not an outlay of funds but rather a collection avoidance for a fixed period of time.
We all know the Bucks are struggling but only some of that is related to the product on the court. My list of issues in order of importance, not related to the talent on the court
1. It is easier, cheaper, and more enjoyable to watch games at home with things like NBA pass, the internet feeds, and all the mobile devices
2. The BC has limited shopping and food options so people are more likely to go to one of the outside venues for dinner. Why go out to dinner AND then go to a game, just go to dinner and skip the game
3. Inflexibility of the venue. Not multi-purpose
4. Sexiness factor that corporations are looking for(new and innovative nearly always sells)
So these are reasons the Bucks and to a certain extent MU aren't selling a ton of tickets. Remember MU only sells out a handful of games and the team has enjoyed a very high level of success and competition.
I would propose the following:
-a smaller venue perhaps 14,000 seats.
-Innovative design/layout like putting the luxury boxes on the floor and seats on top of the boxes
-Integrate dining and/or shopping options with the game experience
-Integrate mobile capabilities with the game experience(most important I think)
---free NBA pass and highlights on mobile devices supported by banner ads
---In-game highlights that can be controlled via mobile device for viewing
---linking with facebook, twitter etc to auto populate where you and what the experience is
-multi-purpose facility with a lot of flexibility
This facility needs to be built for 2020 not 2012 and get ahead of the curve...it will be a much lower cost now given the economy than doing it later.
-
I have no way of knowing, but I always felt having an NBA team near MU was a recruiting advantage. Option 1, would be not to build a new arena and the Bucks eventually leave, which I believe would negatively effect MU recruiting. Option 2 build a new arena (assuming MU gets to use it) and it should help MU recruiting. There is practically no reason for a recruit to want to come to Milwaukee as it is now. Just look how Crean's recruiting has picked up at IU.
It's Indiana for a reason
-
I have no way of knowing, but I always felt having an NBA team near MU was a recruiting advantage. Option 1, would be not to build a new arena and the Bucks eventually leave, which I believe would negatively effect MU recruiting. Option 2 build a new arena (assuming MU gets to use it) and it should help MU recruiting. There is practically no reason for a recruit to want to come to Milwaukee as it is now. Just look how Crean's recruiting has picked up at IU.
WTF is this drivel?
-
WTF is this drivel?
Man, for a military guy, you are pretty damn sensitive. Bilsu really got to you didn't he?
-
Yes Augie, some dudes have won the sperm lottery.
only bothers me when they are born on third base and think they hit a triple.
-
I need my popcorn.....STAT!!!
-
Not at all. He's a self-righteous prick.
In most cases, familiarity facilitates recognition.
-
Man, for a military guy, you are pretty damn sensitive. Bilsu really got to you didn't he?
He's a military guy? ?-( ?-( :o :o :o ::) ?-( ?-( ?-( :o :o :o :o
-
In some ways it is a bit of a reflection on society that a beautiful and functional building like the BC is not worthy enough anymore. We waste so much and just throw it away. The BC is still in great shape. The Bucks suck and adding revenue streams for them isn't going to make them suck any less. NBA guys don't want to stay in Milwaukee, they want New York, LA, Chicago and Miami for the most part. There are exceptions, but they are just that.
Whether the BC helps MU in recruiting is impossible to prove. The top teams in America do not share an NBA arena and often don't even have a NBA team within several hour drive. Shouldn't SMU be better for having the Mavericks in the same town? University of Miami for the Heat? Arizona State with the Suns? USC for the Lakers or Clippers?
If the Bucks left, MU would be the only basketball option in the city. Has a nice ring to it.
-
In some ways it is a bit of a reflection on society that a beautiful and functional building like the BC is not worthy enough anymore. We waste so much and just throw it away. The BC is still in great shape. The Bucks suck and adding revenue streams for them isn't going to make them suck any less. NBA guys don't want to stay in Milwaukee, they want New York, LA, Chicago and Miami for the most part. There are exceptions, but they are just that.
Whether the BC helps MU in recruiting is impossible to prove. The top teams in America do not share an NBA arena and often don't even have a NBA team within several hour drive. Shouldn't SMU be better for having the Mavericks in the same town? University of Miami for the Heat? Arizona State with the Suns? USC for the Lakers or Clippers?
If the Bucks left, MU would be the only basketball option in the city. Has a nice ring to it.
That.
I'll add one thought. Would Milwaukee be a better sports town if the Bucks were replaced by a NHL franchise? I for one think the Preds (or another franchise) would be moved here in 10 seconds if the slot for the #1 winter pro sports team in town opened up. The Bradley was built for NHL hockey and would probably still be in the top 1/2 of the league today in terms of facilities. And it'll remain perfect for MU hoops for decades to come, prospectively as the #2 tenant rather than our current #3 position.
-
Playing at same facility as NBA team is big advantage recruiting wise. I do not get it, but just ask any of our coaches over past couple of decades. I am not 17 year old kid and never will understand what makes them tick. We do not want to lose the Bucks for many reasons and recruiting is not on top of the list for me.
-
Playing at same facility as NBA team is big advantage recruiting wise. I do not get it, but just ask any of our coaches over past couple of decades. I am not 17 year old kid and never will understand what makes them tick. We do not want to lose the Bucks for many reasons and recruiting is not on top of the list for me.
I'm sure coaches say and believe that. But the facts would suggest otherwise. None of the nation's top 25 NCAA teams are in NY, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc. They are in places like North Carolina, Kentucky, southern Indiana (cringe), and freakin' Syracuse, NY.
-
Jsglow
No doubt that is correct. Aside from MU who else plays in NBA arena every game? I do think it offsets the weather and other negatives.
-
I'm sure coaches say and believe that. But the facts would suggest otherwise. None of the nation's top 25 NCAA teams are in NY, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc. They are in places like North Carolina, Kentucky, southern Indiana (cringe), and freakin' Syracuse, NY.
I agree with you in that I don't think there is correlation but there have been great NCAA teams in NBA markets.
UCLA, DePaul, LIU, St John's, GA Tech, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, Cincinnatti, USF, Houston, Memphis, etc
-
If I got the count right, Marquette, SJU, Gtown, Nova, SJU and Memphis are the only NCAA schools who will play in an NBA arena on a regular or semi regular basis. Only the Big East member schools hold this distinction. The BET is the jewel of hoops conference tournaments, played at the granddaddy MSG. Seton Hall just lost its co-leasee, the Brooklyn Nets. Other conferences and the NCAA want to hold their post-season games at NBA arenas. The BC is the only arena that is within walking distance of the school. Pretty sure having Dwade and Lebron at your games is a benefit. Also, am pretty sure that, due to proximity and excellent Al practice facilities on the same look floors as the BC, it is a plus to have NBA teams practice at MU. So, yes, the NBA association helps the basketball only schools and its conference brand, and MU has the most unique distinction.
I also find it interesting that many of the football first schools mentioned play hoops on campus and play/plays football off campus at NFL sites. Does the NFL association matter in recruiting?
Can't wait though when the Bucks move out like the Hawks did in St. Louis to become the next SLU. That will have a nice ring to it, but not a nice ring out.
-
Would you want MU to have the Bradley Center? As the so only basketball tenants of the venue – sharing with the Admirals?
I know it might get knocked down, but...
-
If I got the count right, Marquette, SJU, Gtown, Nova, SJU and Memphis are the only NCAA schools who will play in an NBA arena on a regular or semi regular basis. Only the Big East member schools hold this distinction. The BET is the jewel of hoops conference tournaments, played at the granddaddy MSG. Seton Hall just lost its co-leasee, the Brooklyn Nets. Other conferences and the NCAA want to hold their post-season games at NBA arenas. The BC is the only arena that is within walking distance of the school. Pretty sure having Dwade and Lebron at your games is a benefit. Also, am pretty sure that, due to proximity and excellent Al practice facilities on the same look floors as the BC, it is a plus to have NBA teams practice at MU. So, yes, the NBA association helps the basketball only schools and its conference brand, and MU has the most unique distinction.
I also find it interesting that many of the football first schools mentioned play hoops on campus and play/plays football off campus at NFL sites. Does the NFL association matter in recruiting?
Can't wait though when the Bucks move out like the Hawks did in St. Louis to become the next SLU. That will have a nice ring to it, but not a nice ring out.
I have no doubt that playing in the same building as an NBA team has its advantages. That said, the only justification for building a new arena is Bucks related. Just not sure Milwaukee is prepared to pony up the hundreds of millions for that purpose. And if the rent became exorbitant or if the new arena were somehow not within walking distance for the MU student body . . .
-
Let's talk real numbers here folks. If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend. If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get unnatural carnal knowledgein bent.
-
Let's talk real numbers here folks. If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend. If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.
I supported Miller Park back in the day. But County Stadium was 50 years old at the time. I'm certainly open to a new NBA stadium for Milwaukee but the situation is really apples to oranges different for many of the reasons discussed in this thread.
-
Let's talk real numbers here folks. If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend. If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.
This.
-
Let's talk real numbers here folks. If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend. If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.
Profoundly eloquent
-
Let's talk real numbers here folks. If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend. If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.
Well-stated. Honestly, I'd pay a dollar for every hundred I spend and be fine with that. Of course, most likely not every SEW citizen is as dedicated to Marquette having a state of the art arena as I am.
-
Let's talk real numbers here folks. If it's similar to the Miller Park tax, it's a dime for every hundred dollars you spend. If having a professional basketball team, AND a state of the art arena for Marquette, is too much, honestly, get frackin bent.
Keep your grubby government hands off my Medicare!
-
I supported Miller Park back in the day. But County Stadium was 50 years old at the time. I'm certainly open to a new NBA stadium for Milwaukee but the situation is really apples to oranges different for many of the reasons discussed in this thread.
Good point, but Milwaukee also didn't pay for the BC. It was a donation and built for hockey. Milwaukee hasn't built a real basketball arena since the Mecca. Not saying it would change many minds, but is it important to recognize those points.
-
Good point, but Milwaukee also didn't pay for the BC. It was a donation and built for hockey. Milwaukee hasn't built a real basketball arena since the Mecca. Not saying it would change many minds, but is it important to recognize those points.
So getting a free one before justifies paying for a new one that may not be needed?
And it was not 100% free. Milwaukee had to pay for much of the incidental expenses that came with building the arena, such as street rerouting, etc.
-
So getting a free one before justifies paying for a new one that may not be needed?
And it was not 100% free. Milwaukee had to pay for much of the incidental expenses that came with building the arena, such as street rerouting, etc.
It doesn't justify it but it helps not that Milwaukee hasn't funded an arena downtown since 1950 when it comes to tax payers complaining about the bill. I was also pointing out that the BC was made for hockey, which many people don't realize the drawbacks to a NBA team. I wasn't arguing the original point, just providing more information. This isn't a black/white issue.
-
So getting a free one before justifies paying for a new one that may not be needed?
Well said. What is wrong with the BC? The fact it lacks daily access retail/dining and luxury boxes? That's hardly sufficient for tearing down a good facility. Or, more to the point, tearing down a good facility so the taxpayers can build a replacement that will improve earnings performance for the Bucks.
-
I'm glad everything is so simple in your mind.
Ad hominum fallacies are no basis for building a $400 million replacement arena.
Sorry folks, I just don't see the need. The notion that we can build it and they will come is the only basis I'm reading for why a new arena should be built. Talk about simplistic, that's about as simplistic as it gets!!!
With all of the issues facing Wisconsin and Milwaukee County, this is VERY low on the priority list. Or it should be!
Besides, based on what I have seen, there's two ways to build more suites into a new arena. Out them in the rafters, like they are at the United Center in Chicago, or stack them. The most likely scenario is a two level stack that puts the 400 level seats further away from the floor.
As a frequent 400 level ticket holder, that stinks!
-
One other thought -- where are the Bucks going to go? Here's a rundown of why they are staying put:
1) Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Kansas City -- Varying degrees of quality arenas, all of which are used by NHL or College Basketball teams. There is no way any of these markets are better than Milwaukee. None of them have a better television market and Herb would move from one small market to another.
2) Nashville, TN -- A growing city with a relatively new, skyboxes to the hilt arena. But Nashville barely kept the Predators and if you have a bad team in Nashville, you won't draw period. Plus it's a long commute from the core area of support in Williamson County to downtown.
3) Seattle -- This is the ace in the hole. However, their arena situation was the reason the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City. It's far worse than anything in Milwaukee. Until Seattle builds a replacement for the Key Arena, nothing is possible here.
4) San Diego -- See Seattle, only worse. There's a good reason why the Clippers left town to be Second Banana to the Lakers!
So there you have it -- Herbie Math 101 subtitled, "We aint going anywhere!"
-
I supported Miller Park back in the day. But County Stadium was 50 years old at the time. I'm certainly open to a new NBA stadium for Milwaukee but the situation is really apples to oranges different for many of the reasons discussed in this thread.
This.
I like the Bucks and all, but I'm not in love with public funding of these facilities.
-
Well said. What is wrong with the BC? The fact it lacks daily access retail/dining and luxury boxes? That's hardly sufficient for tearing down a good facility. Or, more to the point, tearing down a good facility so the taxpayers can build a replacement that will improve earnings performance for the Bucks.
The problem is that the building has reached economic obsolescence. The team is constantly losing money, even if it had a good product. The bottom line is that it is pointless to put millions of dollars into renovations that do not serve the means of the main tenant. A outdated computer may be useful for some people and shouldn't be thrown away, but many businesses get new ones because of the usefulness and economics of their business.
Milwaukee has 2 options: Lose the Bucks or Pay for a new arena.
The fact that the BC is in good shape does not mean it is enough for the Bucks to say.If a new stadium is not in the works over the next 5 years they will be in Las Vegas. I support a stadium tax but understand why those that don't want to fund the project. Both options suck but it is the reality of the situation.
-
Is the Bradley Center really that bad to make the Bucks a non-viable franchise?
The Bucks make the Bucks a non-viable franchise
I think the monta ellis trade could make them an exciting team for a while, but IMO their talent level and style of play is pretty boring.
-
One other thought -- where are the Bucks going to go? Here's a rundown of why they are staying put:
3) Seattle -- This is the ace in the hole. However, their arena situation was the reason the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City. It's far worse than anything in Milwaukee. Until Seattle builds a replacement for the Key Arena, nothing is possible here.
Seattle has a plan in place to bring NBA & NHL. Hedge Fund dude is building a BB/Hockey arena in SoDo, just south of Century Link Field & The Safe. Great example of an entrepreneuer taking risk. Milwaukee should take notes.
-
Also, the Bucks leaving wouldn't get Milwaukee a NHL franchise. The reason we don't have a NHL team is because the Blackhawks didn't want another team moving in on their market. Maybe with the old man passing their thoughts on that have changed, but already having a winter sports team was not the reason we didn't get a NHL team after the BC was built.
-
If a new stadium is not in the works over the next 5 years they will be in Las Vegas. [/ noSatan will be wearing earmuffs LONG before Las Vegas gets an NBA team.
Until Nevada outlaws sports betting, no professional team will move to Las Vegas, period. Besides, Las Vegas is the city sub-prime made famous. It will be years before that city is back on its feet. The only money there is coming from out of town.
-
If a new stadium is not in the works over the next 5 years they will be in Las Vegas. [/ noSatan will be wearing earmuffs LONG before Las Vegas gets an NBA team.
Until Nevada outlaws sports betting, no professional team will move to Las Vegas, period. Besides, Las Vegas is the city sub-prime made famous. It will be years before that city is back on its feet. The only money there is coming from out of town.
The nba has a great relation with the nba. They hosted the all star game a few years back and have become the premier summer league with around 20teams participating in it. The money wouldn't come from the city but rather more from the casinos. I think lv will get stronger as the economy does over the next few years.
-
Also, the Bucks leaving wouldn't get Milwaukee a NHL franchise. The reason we don't have a NHL team is because the Blackhawks didn't want another team moving in on their market. Maybe with the old man passing their thoughts on that have changed, but already having a winter sports team was not the reason we didn't get a NHL team after the BC was built.
No doubt the Blackhawks had something to do with it at the time but I think they'd be hard pressed to 'control' the MKE market going forward. They are not on TV or radio up there and have close to zero fan base. The #1 reason that there's no NHL franchise in MKE is that the winter pro sports slot is already taken. It doesn't make sense from a dollars standpoint until that slot is vacated and will make perfect sense if it ever becomes available. And the Blackhawks will complain but that will be lost on deaf ears.
And I agree that Vegas is a viable destination. Frankly, NBA basketball is probably the only pro sport possible out there as the minor league baseball team (AAA Las Vegas 51s) has a very poor following.
-
So there you have it -- Herbie Math 101 subtitled, "We aint going anywhere!"
The problem is that it won't be Herb that moves the team, they'll stay here as long as he's the owner. But he's 77 and the team is going to change ownership soon one way or another, and the new owners will have the moving trucks packed up overnight. I think the entire point of the debate is that they need this arena issue cleared up before new owners come in and it's too late.
New owners would be fine moving the team to a similar sized market (KC, Nashville, Las Vegas, Raleigh, Louisville, etc.), even if it's just to get the temporary bump as a novelty. Then they could buy low, sell high.
-
New owners would be fine moving the team to a similar sized market (KC, Nashville, Las Vegas, Raleigh, Louisville, etc.), even if it's just to get the temporary bump as a novelty. Then they could buy low, sell high.
KC, Nashville and Vegas are all larger and more prosperous than MKE. Very few (if any) cities the size of Milwaukee have 3 major pro sports teams. (Yes, I'm including the Packers.) Nashville didn't have any until about 10-15 years ago. Louisville probably isn't a viable option but Cincinnati might me. I'm sure there are others as well.
-
The Bucks aren't going anywhere. Kohl said he wouldn't let the team move.
-
Well said. What is wrong with the BC? The fact it lacks daily access retail/dining and luxury boxes? That's hardly sufficient for tearing down a good facility. Or, more to the point, tearing down a good facility so the taxpayers can build a replacement that will improve earnings performance for the Bucks.
Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.
-
Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.
No doubt it is probably the weakest NBA arena.
-
Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.
were all those studies commissioned by the Bucks or the group opposed to a new facility?
-
Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.
I suppose the real bottom line question is if Milwaukee is unsuitable for an NBA franchise, long term.
-
I suppose the real bottom line question is if Milwaukee is unsuitable for an NBA franchise, long term.
Where is Wes Pavalon when you need him?
-
Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.
You mean like the studies sponsored by Bud Selig at UWM which showed a net economic contribution to local communities that publicly finance sports stadiums/arenas?
-
I suppose the real bottom line question is if Milwaukee is unsuitable for an NBA franchise, long term.
There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.
But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium
-
There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.
But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium
They were good in 2001. One Glenn Robinson missed layup in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals away from the NBA Finals.
-
There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.
Milwaukee and their fans deserve something better than the worst NBA stadium, and I don't care about the Bucks.
However, there is some good in your post. Milwaukee does not need the Barclays, United Center or AmericanAirlines Arena.
I'm not an expert on NBA/NHL stadium minimums, but a 16,000-17,000 seat stadium with a design emphasis for basketball seating isn't asking for much. While elminating seats, luxury boxes can be doubled. Commercial/retail stadium development would be huge. Look at Miller Park and Friday's, Wisconsin people eat that crap up. The Courtside Club is also a huge joke compared to what people spend to get that access.
Knock the BC and it's parking structure down. Develop the entire footprint into a smaller, but fan-friendlier stadium. Build a new (and better) parking structure in the Park West footprint.
$150 million later, downtown Milwaukee has a new gem. The new stadium will help develop the area surrounding the BC, towards the Park Freeway and ultimately closer to the east side and the river.
-
Where is Wes Pavalon when you need him?
I can still picture him jumping for joy when Milwaukee won the lottery and got first pick-with which he chose Lew Alcindor. What great talent he assembled on early teams. Man, Oscar Robertson was a thrill to watch.
-
Where is Wes Pavalon when you need him?
[/quote
On the wrong side of the grass
-
You mean like the studies sponsored by Bud Selig at UWM which showed a net economic contribution to local communities that publicly finance sports stadiums/arenas?
Someone please cite the "economic" studies for and against publicly financed stadia.
-
There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.
But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium
What helps franchises weather the bad years it the revenue the building creates when attendance is down. Milwaukee is nothing like Nashville. If you put a decent team on the floor they will come. A lot of cities can't even say that.
Part of the problem is that Milwaukee has front office issues. They overspend on crappy players. You know, Michael Redd and pretty much anyone they have traded for in the last 10 years.
-
One other thought -- where are the Bucks going to go? Here's a rundown of why they are staying put:
1) Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Kansas City -- Varying degrees of quality arenas, all of which are used by NHL or College Basketball teams. There is no way any of these markets are better than Milwaukee. None of them have a better television market and Herb would move from one small market to another.
2) Nashville, TN -- A growing city with a relatively new, skyboxes to the hilt arena. But Nashville barely kept the Predators and if you have a bad team in Nashville, you won't draw period. Plus it's a long commute from the core area of support in Williamson County to downtown.
3) Seattle -- This is the ace in the hole. However, their arena situation was the reason the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City. It's far worse than anything in Milwaukee. Until Seattle builds a replacement for the Key Arena, nothing is possible here.
4) San Diego -- See Seattle, only worse. There's a good reason why the Clippers left town to be Second Banana to the Lakers!
So there you have it -- Herbie Math 101 subtitled, "We aint going anywhere!"
Here in Connecticut, they would like to lure an NHL team back (or a possible NBA team). There's a $95mil plan out there to refurbish the XL Center to make it pro-sports worthy rather than build a new $250-$300mil arena. The state is not biting on either yet due to current fiscal reasons. The thought is the XL Center due to age needs to be upgraded for UConn men's & women's basketball at some point anyway. UConn is also supposedly upgrading their hockey program to join Hockey East and the on campus rink won't work for the upgrade.
I heard St. Paul, MN refurbished the arena for the then expansion Wild by basically cutting the top off the existing arena and building from there because it was far cheaper than building a new arena.
-
There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.
But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium
I have trouble with the Milwaukee has trouble supporting a loser tag. I think Milwaukee has been pretty loyal to its professional teams considering the decades of incompetence that all three have been through over the last 40 years.
And the reason the Packers didn't sell out County Stadium is because it was an awful football venue. Those same ticket holders have no problem driving up to Green Bay.
-
I have lived in cities/states that have been at the brink of these kinds of decisions and have closely followed several other similar situations. It always comes down to one thing:
How important are professional sports (or a particular professional sports franchise) for the image of the city? How badly do you want to retain your standing as a big-league-sports town?
If a city's (or state's) residents ultimately vote against these kind of arena projects and then the team moves, the residents have made both financial and quality-of-life decisions. Maybe they decide (and it's hard to argue this), that their local schools need their money more than the billionaire team owner does. But when that decision is made, they have to live with it and agree they played a part in their team's departure.
When I lived in the Twin Cities, the owner of the North Stars asked the state for a few million dollars and a little bit of land to connect the Met Center -- an excellent arena, by the way -- to the new Mall of America. Residents, through their elected officials, denied the request. The owner moved the team to Dallas and was vilified. A few years later, the public ponied up significantly more money to build the Wild's arena and bring the NHL back.
Cleveland got the NFL back; Los Angeles didn't. Charlotte kept an NBA team (of sorts); Seattle is going without. Atlanta got another crack at the NHL; it's hard to believe it will get a third team. Would Milwaukee ever get a shot at another NBA team if the Bucks left? Highly doubtful.
Yes, it sucks that taxpayers have to give billionaires money for arenas. Sadly, with very few exceptions, that's how the game is played. If you don't give the money, another city/state will. It's a national shell game, of sorts.
I don't blame any municipality's citizens for refusing to fund arenas because there are indeed many better uses for public funds. I only say that if you do refuse, you basically are holding the door open for the team to leave and have to be ready to live with the consequences.
I'm not sure if Seattle's collective psyche is still hurting about the Sonics' departure or if that is a distant, inconsequential memory.
-
I have lived in cities/states that have been at the brink of these kinds of decisions and have closely followed several other similar situations. It always comes down to one thing:
How important are professional sports (or a particular professional sports franchise) for the image of the city? How badly do you want to retain your standing as a big-league-sports town?
If a city's (or state's) residents ultimately vote against these kind of arena projects and then the team moves, the residents have made both financial and quality-of-life decisions. Maybe they decide (and it's hard to argue this), that their local schools need their money more than the billionaire team owner does. But when that decision is made, they have to live with it and agree they played a part in their team's departure.
When I lived in the Twin Cities, the owner of the North Stars asked the state for a few million dollars and a little bit of land to connect the Met Center -- an excellent arena, by the way -- to the new Mall of America. Residents, through their elected officials, denied the request. The owner moved the team to Dallas and was vilified. A few years later, the public ponied up significantly more money to build the Wild's arena and bring the NHL back.
Cleveland got the NFL back; Los Angeles didn't. Charlotte kept an NBA team (of sorts); Seattle is going without. Atlanta got another crack at the NHL; it's hard to believe it will get a third team. Would Milwaukee ever get a shot at another NBA team if the Bucks left? Highly doubtful.
Yes, it sucks that taxpayers have to give billionaires money for arenas. Sadly, with very few exceptions, that's how the game is played. If you don't give the money, another city/state will. It's a national shell game, of sorts.
I don't blame any municipality's citizens for refusing to fund arenas because there are indeed many better uses for public funds. I only say that if you do refuse, you basically are holding the door open for the team to leave and have to be ready to live with the consequences.
I'm not sure if Seattle's collective psyche is still hurting about the Sonics' departure or if that is a distant, inconsequential memory.
Well said. If you want the team to stick around you pony up the cash. If you don't care, then vote no, but don't be surprised if you don't get a team back at a later point in time.
That is the problem with Milwaukee. If they lose the Bucks, I doubt anyone else would come knocking any time soon.
-
And the reason the Packers didn't sell out County Stadium is because it was an awful football venue. Those same ticket holders have no problem driving up to Green Bay.
I want to agree with you, but the Packers are so far and away #1 in this state, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
The Bucks, for better or worse, are entertainment, and compete for entertainment dollars.
The Packers are religion, and the loyalty that comes with that makes it a far different animal.
A new stadium might create a better game experience, create more revenue for the team, and lead to some success and attendance.
HOWEVER, the conservative in me doesn't really like spending $ on buildings for wealthy owners. IF Herb can't afford to build the building on his own, maybe Milwaukee shouldn't have a franchise. There are a handful of sports teams in a handful of cities that exist only because the public has subsidized them.
Salaries have gone up exponentially over the years. Instead of controlling such growth, the owners have looked to cities to provide them with additional revenue in order to stay a viable franchise.
I don't know if the public should be bailing teams out anymore. Maybe the leagues need to manage their $ a little better if they want to have 30+ teams in their league.
-
I want to agree with you, but the Packers are so far and away #1 in this state, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
The Bucks, for better or worse, are entertainment, and compete for entertainment dollars.
The Packers are religion, and the loyalty that comes with that makes it a far different animal.
A new stadium might create a better game experience, create more revenue for the team, and lead to some success and attendance.
HOWEVER, the conservative in me doesn't really like spending $ on buildings for wealthy owners. IF Herb can't afford to build the building on his own, maybe Milwaukee shouldn't have a franchise. There are a handful of sports teams in a handful of cities that exist only because the public has subsidized them.
Salaries have gone up exponentially over the years. Instead of controlling such growth, the owners have looked to cities to provide them with additional revenue in order to stay a viable franchise.
I don't know if the public should be bailing teams out anymore. Maybe the leagues need to manage their $ a little better if they want to have 30+ teams in their league.
I actually agree with this. If the Bucks left Milwaukee, I doubt the city would be worse off. Some entertainment venues near the BC might be...but the city as a whole would be just fine.
In fact it might just help the Brewers if the local business community had only one team in which to invest in.
-
I actually agree with this. If the Bucks left Milwaukee, I doubt the city would be worse off. Some entertainment venues near the BC might be...but the city as a whole would be just fine.
In fact it might just help the Brewers if the local business community had only one team in which to invest in.
The bars right next to the Bradley would hurt, but 3rd street would be fine. They do a reasonable amount of business down there anyways.
Also, I wouldn't be opposed to building a new arena if the city leased it and ultimately made some revenue off of it. Unfortunately, the standard is set so that the teams get the vast majority of the $ generated, and it's a $ loser for the city/state.
-
2002MUalum,
While I agree I don't like the overspending of tax dollars for billionaires, I don't think Herb Kohl fits this description. This isn't Mark Cuban asking for half a billion, it's one of the 'poorest' owners in the NBA.
Now he wants to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee, he can't afford an arena on his own. Does he sell ownership to investors that might move the team eventually, or does he ask the City/State for some help?
I think it's a two-way street. Owners should be ponying up money, as well as the local governments that will benefit from it as well shouldn't instantly throw the owner out on the street.
-
Also, I wouldn't be opposed to building a new arena if the city leased it and ultimately made some revenue off of it. Unfortunately, the standard is set so that the teams get the vast majority of the $ generated, and it's a $ loser for the city/state.
Any non-Bucks revenue a new arena would receive would simply be a shift from the existing venues, resulting in a net increase of zero. Currently, Milwaukee can host any type of event it needs to between the Arena and the BC.
-
I want to agree with you, but the Packers are so far and away #1 in this state, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
The Bucks, for better or worse, are entertainment, and compete for entertainment dollars.
The Packers are religion, and the loyalty that comes with that makes it a far different animal.
A new stadium might create a better game experience, create more revenue for the team, and lead to some success and attendance.
HOWEVER, the conservative in me doesn't really like spending $ on buildings for wealthy owners. IF Herb can't afford to build the building on his own, maybe Milwaukee shouldn't have a franchise. There are a handful of sports teams in a handful of cities that exist only because the public has subsidized them.
Salaries have gone up exponentially over the years. Instead of controlling such growth, the owners have looked to cities to provide them with additional revenue in order to stay a viable franchise.
I don't know if the public should be bailing teams out anymore. Maybe the leagues need to manage their $ a little better if they want to have 30+ teams in their league.
My problem with this is that most arenas aren't financed by the owners. Financially speaking, I'm sure there are more than a few downtown businesses that make a lot of their money on a Bucks home nights.
Salaries have gone up over the years, but I believe that two years in a row now the salary cap in the NBA has decreased. Also, according to David Stern, all teams should be profitable in two years due to revenue sharing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-04/nba-s-stern-says-all-teams-should-be-profitable-within-two-years.html
-
From an economics perspective, public funding of stadiums is a terrible use of money. I'm pretty sure there's broad consensus on this point from economists.
From a Marquette perspective, public funding of stadiums is a wonderful use of money. Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse the Bucks in their effort to get a new stadium.
-
Also, the Bucks leaving wouldn't get Milwaukee a NHL franchise. The reason we don't have a NHL team is because the Blackhawks didn't want another team moving in on their market.
I thought it was because Petite balked at paying the required buy-in fee for an expansion franchise and hoped to relocate an existing team
Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium
hmm, then why was I only able to get my hands on a ticket 1 time and then only because it was too d@mn cold for the ticket holder from Whitefish Bay?
-
My problem with this is that most arenas aren't financed by the owners. Financially speaking, I'm sure there are more than a few downtown businesses that make a lot of their money on a Bucks home nights.
Salaries have gone up over the years, but I believe that two years in a row now the salary cap in the NBA has decreased. Also, according to David Stern, all teams should be profitable in two years due to revenue sharing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-04/nba-s-stern-says-all-teams-should-be-profitable-within-two-years.html
I understand that most cities are doing it.
I'm not picking on the Bucks or Herb specifically.
I've just watched the public financing over the past 20 years. When I was a kid, it was a no brainer, I wanted a team.
Now that I'm older (and probably meaner), I don't know why the public is expected to subsidize pro sports. I know there are plenty of public subsidizes out there, so maybe I should just shut up and get on board, but I just don't like the idea that we need to pay for a private businesses. If you can't afford it, it's probably not a viable business model. Simple.
I know that teams bring jobs and $ downtown, which is great.
Tax incentives for the owner? Sure.
Favorable lease? Ok.
Infrastructure paid by the state?(highways, exits, parking, etc.) Yeah.
Buying a brand new building every 20 years so an owner/league has "more revenue streams"?
I'm just not sure that is a good idea. Salaries have "leveled off", but are still too high. If you can't afford an building for your employees, your overhead is too high.
-
I thought it was because Petite balked at paying the required buy-in fee for an expansion franchise and hoped to relocate an existing team
hmm, then why was I only able to get my hands on a ticket 1 time and then only because it was too d@mn cold for the ticket holder from Whitefish Bay?
It's rumored that the buy-in fee was significantly increased by the urging of Bill Wirtz.
-
2002MUalum,
While I agree I don't like the overspending of tax dollars for billionaires, I don't think Herb Kohl fits this description. This isn't Mark Cuban asking for half a billion, it's one of the 'poorest' owners in the NBA.
Now he wants to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee, he can't afford an arena on his own. Does he sell ownership to investors that might move the team eventually, or does he ask the City/State for some help?
I think it's a two-way street. Owners should be ponying up money, as well as the local governments that will benefit from it as well shouldn't instantly throw the owner out on the street.
Yea, I'm not specifically picking on Herb, but the overall pro-sports business model.
If franchises can't afford their building, then their model sucks. Simple.
If they are just blackmailing cities to make more $, then I'll save them some money on movers and help them pack.
I think I'm just getting older/more bitter.
-
Yea, I'm not specifically picking on Herb, but the overall pro-sports business model.
If franchises can't afford their building, then their model sucks. Simple.
If they are just blackmailing cities to make more $, then I'll save them some money on movers and help them pack.
I think I'm just getting older/more bitter.
Probably.
-
Yea, I'm not specifically picking on Herb, but the overall pro-sports business model.
If franchises can't afford their building, then their model sucks. Simple.
If they are just blackmailing cities to make more $, then I'll save them some money on movers and help them pack.
I think I'm just getting older/more bitter.
No, no. I see what you're saying.
-
Probably.
I just don't like the idea of tax payers subsidizing businesses with bad models. Most sports teams qualify... or at least that is what we are told when they come looking for "additional revenue streams".
If that makes me a crabby old man, then I'll start pulling my pants up a little higher.
For the record, one of the few subsidizes I do support is technology and development because I feel that they can stimulate the free market and ultimately quality of life for an average consumer. I just don't think $300-400 million dollars in a downtown Milwaukee stadium qualifies for me.
/yanks pants up higher.
-
/yanks pants up higher.
(http://i.imgur.com/3dRLp.gif)
-
I want to agree with you, but the Packers are so far and away #1 in this state, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
The Bucks, for better or worse, are entertainment, and compete for entertainment dollars.
The Packers are religion, and the loyalty that comes with that makes it a far different animal.
A new stadium might create a better game experience, create more revenue for the team, and lead to some success and attendance.
HOWEVER, the conservative in me doesn't really like spending $ on buildings for wealthy owners. IF Herb can't afford to build the building on his own, maybe Milwaukee shouldn't have a franchise. There are a handful of sports teams in a handful of cities that exist only because the public has subsidized them.
Salaries have gone up exponentially over the years. Instead of controlling such growth, the owners have looked to cities to provide them with additional revenue in order to stay a viable franchise.
I don't know if the public should be bailing teams out anymore. Maybe the leagues need to manage their $ a little better if they want to have 30+ teams in their league.
It very rarely comes down to one of these guys being able to afford something. It's more about them choosing not to afford it because the taxpayers will afford it for them. Even if Kohl is a relatively "poor" owner, as one earlier poster said, he's got plenty -- and he's got plenty of CEO and other rich friends who could help him with private financing if he so chose to go that route. It's not as if Reisdorf/Wirtz paid for the United Center out of their own wallets; they enlisted their rich buddies.
Carl Pohlad was one of the richest men in the world, a guy who built his fortune by fleecing poor people. Yet as Twins owner, he almost always cheaped out on players, he repeatedly threatened to move the team and he even offered to let them cease to exist (when contraction was all the rage). When it came time to build a new ballpark, rather than ponying up a little money so it could be domed, he cheaped out again, took every cent he could from the taxpayers and got a lovely (albeit impractical in Minny's inclement weather) ballpark. Then he died and, I believe, became the first person since King Tut to take his riches with him into the grave.
They aren't all as bad as Pohlad, thank goodness, but most have Pohladian tendencies. They are prime examples of fiscal ultraconservatives who have no problem living off the taxpayer tit when it suits their needs.
-
It's rumored that the buy-in fee was significantly increased by the urging of Bill Wirtz.
Actually, that part is more truth than rumor. The real rumor in the story is that the urging by Bill Wirtz to up the fee was instigated by the Esposito brothers.
-
I want to agree with you, but the Packers are so far and away #1 in this state, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
The Bucks, for better or worse, are entertainment, and compete for entertainment dollars.
The Packers are religion, and the loyalty that comes with that makes it a far different animal.
A new stadium might create a better game experience, create more revenue for the team, and lead to some success and attendance.
HOWEVER, the conservative in me doesn't really like spending $ on buildings for wealthy owners. IF Herb can't afford to build the building on his own, maybe Milwaukee shouldn't have a franchise. There are a handful of sports teams in a handful of cities that exist only because the public has subsidized them.
Salaries have gone up exponentially over the years. Instead of controlling such growth, the owners have looked to cities to provide them with additional revenue in order to stay a viable franchise.
I don't know if the public should be bailing teams out anymore. Maybe the leagues need to manage their $ a little better if they want to have 30+ teams in their league.
+1
I wonder if part of the reason people might have more animosity toward an NBA franchise than an NFL franchise is that it seems pretty assured that only 3-4 teams in the league matter on a regular basis, or ever win the championship, and the rest of the league merely serves as competitive fodder for those few teams. I can't speak for most sports fans, but I would not mind if the NBA got the message that most fans are tired of putting up with the oligopolistic reigning franchises, the seven figure salaries and egos, etc. by freely telling NBA owners and teams that they won't put up public financing for an overall crappy product.
-
It's not as if Reisdorf/Wirtz paid for the United Center out of their own wallets; they enlisted their rich buddies.
If they received some cash, the United Center may have been in a much better location instead of the craphole it sits now.
-
The NBA isn't going to get any sort of "message" from Milwaukee when their television ratings are high and other cities have perfectly good stadiums to which the Bucks could move. You may think they have a "crappy product," but the rating suggest otherwise.
-
If they received some cash, the United Center may have been in a much better location instead of the craphole it sits now.
I live in Chicago, and I have no idea where this would have been. Hoffman Estates?
-
I live in Chicago, and I have no idea where this would have been. Hoffman Estates?
Near South Side.
-
I heard St. Paul, MN refurbished the arena for the then expansion Wild by basically cutting the top off the existing arena and building from there because it was far cheaper than building a new arena.
Not true. They demolished the Civic Center to build the X. There was talk of cutting off the top very early on but it was quickly abandoned.
-
Any non-Bucks revenue a new arena would receive would simply be a shift from the existing venues, resulting in a net increase of zero. Currently, Milwaukee can host any type of event it needs to between the Arena and the BC.
Unless the new venue increases traffic then that uptick would represent potential incremental spend. This did happen with Camden Yards, for instance.
-
Unless the new venue increases traffic then that uptick would represent potential incremental spend. This did happen with Camden Yards, for instance.
So you are saying that more people will come to see, say, Nickelback if it is at a new arena instead of the BC. Otherwise, you would be assuming a new venue would hold more people (not really the issue here). Then it would only apply to the rare event that would have sold out the BC.
-
I live in Chicago, and I have no idea where this would have been. Hoffman Estates?
Shermer, IL
-
So you are saying that more people will come to see, say, Nickelback if it is at a new arena instead of the BC. Otherwise, you would be assuming a new venue would hold more people (not really the issue here). Then it would only apply to the rare event that would have sold out the BC.
I am actually not advocating building a new stadium/arena. Some people here have suggested that there will be increased traffic to Marquette games, Bucks games, and incrementally more events like Nickleback. If true then there would be an increased revenue from the increment increase from those three streams.
Personally I do not favor public finance for stadiums. But then, I hate giving money to schools since I hate the Communists at NEA.
-
It's rumored that the buy-in fee was significantly increased by the urging of Bill Wirtz.
Bill's dead. Rocky is a much better businessman and would actually understand the benefit derived from a new rival 90 miles north.
And I saw a reference somewhere to $150 million pricetag!! The BC itself was $90 million in the late 1980s. Shake hands with $350-$400 million before you make it sexy.
-
I am actually not advocating building a new stadium/arena. Some people here have suggested that there will be increased traffic to Marquette games, Bucks games, and incrementally more events like Nickleback. If true then there would be an increased revenue from the increment increase from those three streams.
Personally I do not favor public finance for stadiums. But then, I hate giving money to schools since I hate the Communists at NEA.
I honestly believe that a new arena won't bring in a nickel (pardon the pun) of incremental revenue other than being able to occasionally sell a few extra seats on what would otherwise be a sellout crowd, and perhaps some additional luxury box revenue - and how much would that actually be?
The BC isn't a dump - it is just slightly outdated. If someone is considering going to see the Bulls or the Warriors or (shudder) Nickelback, the venue is not going to be a deal breaker. And I doubt that a new arena is going to attract a significant number of new events. I am sure that in most cases, event promoters first decide on the cities, and then from among the available facilities.
-
The BC isn't a dump - it is just slightly outdated. If someone is considering going to see the Bulls or the Warriors or (shudder) Nickelback, the venue is not going to be a deal breaker.
Actually, the BULLS would be a great addition!!
-
I honestly believe that a new arena won't bring in a nickel (pardon the pun) of incremental revenue other than being able to occasionally sell a few extra seats on what would otherwise be a sellout crowd, and perhaps some additional luxury box revenue - and how much would that actually be?
The BC isn't a dump - it is just slightly outdated. If someone is considering going to see the Bulls or the Warriors or (shudder) Nickelback, the venue is not going to be a deal breaker. And I doubt that a new arena is going to attract a significant number of new events. I am sure that in most cases, event promoters first decide on the cities, and then from among the available facilities.
I have seen the same thing here in Seattle. First, Seattle is dead set against a public-funded replacement for The Key so Starbucks Howard sells to the rednecks, knowing full well they are headed for No Town on the Prairie.
Was Key Arena a bad venue in which to watch a game? Hell no. Pre or post game food and drink is available in spades within walking distance of Key. Frankly, I would rather eat/drink at any of a number of Belltown/Seattle Center joints than the over priced crap you get in a stadium. Even if a famous place has an outpost at the stadium it charges 2x more than if you went to the conventional location.
Remember that David Stern was complicit in trying to extort a new venue out of Seattle. Both the Mayor (who is a Communist) and Schultz said no and the NBA moved the team to the middle of nowhere. I look forward to the day when the Sonics are not competitive in OKC and attendance plummets.
-
I honestly believe that a new arena won't bring in a nickel (pardon the pun) of incremental revenue other than being able to occasionally sell a few extra seats on what would otherwise be a sellout crowd, and perhaps some additional luxury box revenue - and how much would that actually be?
Not advocating a new arena, don't really care about the Bucks.
The name of the game is increasing the number of expensive, really expensive, seats and eliminating the cheap seats. They may even build a smaller arena with higher revenue.
-
I can't tell you how many Bucks games I went to this year that had horrible attendance. The only games approaching a sell-out were the Lakers, the Heat, and the Bulls. And at the Bulls game the vast majority of fans had Bulls colors/jerseys on. A new stadium would only draw until the novelty wore off, then it's up to the Bucks. As it is, good seats cost $158.00 per and it's awfully hard to justify the expense in spite of the half-time tumbling and the Energee dancers. I know the same seat is double or close in Chicago, but they are drawing crowds and supply and demand comes into play. Milwaukee is drawing flys and playing to half empty houses..., pretty hard to raise prices or count on selling more 'premium seating'.
-
Not advocating a new arena, don't really care about the Bucks.
The name of the game is increasing the number of expensive, really expensive, seats and eliminating the cheap seats. They may even build a smaller arena with higher revenue.
Excellent business model for Milwaukee...pay even more to see the same crappy NBA team.
-
I care about the bucks because it is in MU's best interest to play in a glitz arena with NBA on the backboard. When the bucks had a competent front office and were spending moola the bc had good attendance.
-
the bucks do spend, they just spend poorly.
-
It occurred to me that there may be one of two things going on here that haven't really been discussed:
1. All of this whining by Herb may simply be an attempt to distract attention from the real reason the team isn't drawing, which is that the team sucks, mainly because of bad decisions by the management. Remember awhile back when the Packers were tanking, and there were those that were saying it was because that African American players didn't want to live in Green Bay? Heck, there wasn't even a place up there to get their hair cut. That issue magically disappeared once the Packers started winning again. If the Bucks were good and the BC was filling up, I don't think you'd be hearing a peep out of Herb.
2. It could very well be that Herb really doesn't care that much about keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee, and he knows that Milwaukeeans would never give him a new arena. However, if he goes through the motions of asking for one, then he can use it as the reason the team had to leave town.
-
If they received some cash, the United Center may have been in a much better location instead of the craphole it sits now.
Ummm ... they did receive cash, and lots of it, from their private investors. And the location of the United Center, right across the street from the old Stadium, doesn't keep fans away. The Bulls kept drawing even when they were the jokes of the league after Jordan left. The Blackhawks draw big whenever they have a reasonably representative team.
-
Near South Side.
I don't think we need another stadium by the Field Museum.
Longtime Blackhawk season ticket holders were already cheesed that their seats were moved to make way for corporate boxes when the team changed from the Stadium to the UC; moving three miles away into heavy traffic wouldn't make them feel any better.
-
Ummm ... they did receive cash, and lots of it, from their private investors. And the location of the United Center, right across the street from the old Stadium, doesn't keep fans away. The Bulls kept drawing even when they were the jokes of the league after Jordan left. The Blackhawks draw big whenever they have a reasonably representative team.
Regardless, Reinsdorf and Wirtz discussed public finance and didn't like the strings attached to it. The location was dirt cheap, but still in an incredibly bad neighborhood disconnected from public transportation and arterial access. No stadium built after 1980 has worse accces than the UC.
As promised, no improvements have been made to gain access to the UC. Always talks of extending the Pink Line, that will never happen.
I don't think we need another stadium by the Field Museum.
There is how many now? Good thing Chicago got passed on the Olympics then.
-
KC, Nashville and Vegas are all larger and more prosperous than MKE. Very few (if any) cities the size of Milwaukee have 3 major pro sports teams. (Yes, I'm including the Packers.) Nashville didn't have any until about 10-15 years ago. Louisville probably isn't a viable option but Cincinnati might me. I'm sure there are others as well.
Oakland is way smaller than Milwaukee and actually has 3 teams inside the city limits. Also the Oracle dude wants to buy a team and move them to San Jose so people shouldn't discount San Jose as a viable city for a Bucks move. The money and fans will be there if they already stole the Niner's. At least the (golden state) warriors will end up bouncing back to the city soon.
-
It occurred to me that there may be one of two things going on here that haven't really been discussed:
1. All of this whining by Herb may simply be an attempt to distract attention from the real reason the team isn't drawing, which is that the team sucks, mainly because of bad decisions by the management. Remember awhile back when the Packers were tanking, and there were those that were saying it was because that African American players didn't want to live in Green Bay? Heck, there wasn't even a place up there to get their hair cut. That issue magically disappeared once the Packers started winning again. If the Bucks were good and the BC was filling up, I don't think you'd be hearing a peep out of Herb.
2. It could very well be that Herb really doesn't care that much about keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee, and he knows that Milwaukeeans would never give him a new arena. However, if he goes through the motions of asking for one, then he can use it as the reason the team had to leave town.
1. The idea that no one goes to see if the Bucks because they are bad holds a lot of water. But even if they started selling out games, they wouldn't be making the money they could be making if they had a better arena. People here seem to assume that the only way that pro teams make money is through ticket sales. I'd argue that if the Bucks were doing really well, Herb would be on his knees begging the city to build a new arena.
2. Herb does care about keeping the team in Milwaukee and has said as much for a long time. He has no plans to sell the team to anyone who plans to take the team out of Wisconsin. I think some people forget how hugely popular the man is and his ties to the state.
I have seen the same thing here in Seattle. First, Seattle is dead set against a public-funded replacement for The Key so Starbucks Howard sells to the rednecks, knowing full well they are headed for No Town on the Prairie.
Was Key Arena a bad venue in which to watch a game? Hell no. Pre or post game food and drink is available in spades within walking distance of Key. Frankly, I would rather eat/drink at any of a number of Belltown/Seattle Center joints than the over priced crap you get in a stadium. Even if a famous place has an outpost at the stadium it charges 2x more than if you went to the conventional location.
Remember that David Stern was complicit in trying to extort a new venue out of Seattle. Both the Mayor (who is a Communist) and Schultz said no and the NBA moved the team to the middle of nowhere. I look forward to the day when the Sonics are not competitive in OKC and attendance plummets.
The OKC Thunder will always have good attendance because it is the only show in town.
-
1. The idea that no one goes to see if the Bucks because they are bad holds a lot of water. But even if they started selling out games, they wouldn't be making the money they could be making if they had a better arena. People here seem to assume that the only way that pro teams make money is through ticket sales. I'd argue that if the Bucks were doing really well, Herb would be on his knees begging the city to build a new arena.
This is the inherent problem with pro sports, isn't it? Even if they sell-put their product, they can't make money?
-
Oakland is way smaller than Milwaukee and actually has 3 teams inside the city limits. Also the Oracle dude wants to buy a team and move them to San Jose so people shouldn't discount San Jose as a viable city for a Bucks move. The money and fans will be there if they already stole the Niner's. At least the (golden state) warriors will end up bouncing back to the city soon.
Oakland also sits in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country.
-
This is the inherent problem with pro sports, isn't it? Even if they sell-put their product, they can't make money?
I'm not sure what you mean. Plenty of owners make a lot of money from their teams. Not all do. While a lot of you seem to want the free market take care of whether or not teams should be in one town or another, I do not. I like teams to stay where they are out of tradition, rivalry, an self interest.
That said, if an NHL team from the South would move up to Milwaukee, I would be ecstatic.
-
I'm not sure what you mean. Plenty of owners make a lot of money from their teams. Not all do. While a lot of you seem to want the free market take care of whether or not teams should be in one town or another, I do not. I like teams to stay where they are out of tradition, rivalry, an self interest.
That said, if an NHL team from the South would move up to Milwaukee, I would be ecstatic.
I would like teams to stay where they are too, but I don't think I should have to fund it.
Fans think its a no-brainer, and I understand that. The economist in me outweighs the fan in me.
-
I would like teams to stay where they are too, but I don't think I should have to fund it.
Fans think its a no-brainer, and I understand that. The economist in me outweighs the fan in me.
I made this point earlier in this thread, but for many folks, 10 cents for every $100 you spend is worth it to me.
-
2. Herb does care about keeping the team in Milwaukee and has said as much for a long time. He has no plans to sell the team to anyone who plans to take the team out of Wisconsin. I think some people forget how hugely popular the man is and his ties to the state.
Enough political talk!
-
I made this point earlier in this thread, but for many folks, 10 cents for every $100 you spend is worth it.
You're right, and I understand that but there are some problems for me:
#1 As it stands, most municipalities (city, state, fed.) are already overspending. I don't like tacking on more spending, even if it is generally seen as inconsequential. Instead of having politicians working out stadium deals, tell them to get to work on creating more efficient programs and policies that will actually help people.
#2 If it's only 10cents on a $100, and if there are a lot of people that want a new arena, then hold a fundraiser like PBS and have people call in pledges. If the big fans donated $100, surely that would make up for somebody like me that doesn't really want to pay for it.
#3 I realize #2 probably wouldn't work, and that's exactly my point.
#4 Cities/states fund plenty of buildings and items that don't make money (museums, historical society, libraries, etc.). However, those generally aren't private entities with poor business models that have $300 dollar buildings constructed for them.
-
personal opinion; a great deal of Herbie's popularity is due to buying the Bucks to 'keep them in Milwaukee'. His burning desire to own a sports team may stem from his association with Bud Selig (college roomates) and Bud's former ownership of the Brewers. He has proven himself inept, as has Bucks hierarchy at talent selection/team building/management. A change of ownership might be the best thing for the Bucks-could result in better teams, crowds, revenues, etc all at the BC.
-
Well-stated. Honestly, I'd pay a dollar for every hundred I spend and be fine with that. Of course, most likely not every SEW citizen is as dedicated to Marquette having a state of the art arena as I am.
Many people who don't care about sports have a tough time believing $500 million spent on a new arena is money well spent for a business that has millionaires already. Then you add in that the current building is in very good shape, MPS in shambles and all sorts of other problems, it becomes a matter of priorities.
That is the other argument.
-
Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.
Can you link to those studies?
No doubt it is probably the weakest NBA arena.
Sacramento, Detroit, New Orleans, etc beg to differ
-
#2 If it's only 10cents on a $100, and if there are a lot of people that want a new arena, then hold a fundraiser like PBS and have people call in pledges. If the big fans donated $100, surely that would make up for somebody like me that doesn't really want to pay for it.
maybe like the old 45 "Let's keep the Bucks in Milwaukee" from 1985? I still have 2 copies of that, I googled for images and there is actually one on ebay right now: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Keep-Bucks-Milwaukee-Old-Style-Booze-Bros-7-45-rpm-/370606087773
if that sells for $30 I'm gonna sell mine which I thought were worthless novelties LOL
-
You're right, and I understand that but there are some problems for me:
#1 As it stands, most municipalities (city, state, fed.) are already overspending. I don't like tacking on more spending, even if it is generally seen as inconsequential. Instead of having politicians working out stadium deals, tell them to get to work on creating more efficient programs and policies that will actually help people.
#2 If it's only 10cents on a $100, and if there are a lot of people that want a new arena, then hold a fundraiser like PBS and have people call in pledges. If the big fans donated $100, surely that would make up for somebody like me that doesn't really want to pay for it.
#3 I realize #2 probably wouldn't work, and that's exactly my point.
#4 Cities/states fund plenty of buildings and items that don't make money (museums, historical society, libraries, etc.). However, those generally aren't private entities with poor business models that have $300 dollar buildings constructed for them.
#1 is totally a matter of opinion.
#2 is totally unrealistic
#3 I get your point.
#4 I understand, but it isn't as if they just give the building to the teams... its a publicly owned building.
personal opinion; a great deal of Herbie's popularity is due to buying the Bucks to 'keep them in Milwaukee'. His burning desire to own a sports team may stem from his association with Bud Selig (college roomates) and Bud's former ownership of the Brewers. He has proven himself inept, as has Bucks hierarchy at talent selection/team building/management. A change of ownership might be the best thing for the Bucks-could result in better teams, crowds, revenues, etc all at the BC.
Totally agree, with the caveat being that the team is kept in Milwaukee.
Can you link to those studies?
Sacramento, Detroit, New Orleans, etc beg to differ
New Orleans can complain all they want since they have the Superdome sitting next door to their arena... I've been to the Pistons home court, and it is far better then the BC... Sacremento has a legit beef, and I expect them to be on the move very soon. Which is too bad because they have some pretty loyal fans, who have a terrible team/front office... sort of like Milwaukee.
When all is said and done, Mr. Kohl has said they he plans to contribute, "not an insignificant amount" towards a new facility. Which is something not a lot of owners can say.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/kohls-commitment-is-significant-db59ins-150218605.html
-
#1 is totally a matter of opinion.
Well, the budgets aren't really balanced as it stands, and costs to provide some public services are going up, therefore, inmho, we are spending too much. I'm not some lunatic uber-conservative I'm just looking at the economic basics of where we are as a country.
#2 is totally unrealistic
It is unrealistic, but it's basically what the Packers just did with the stock plan. If there is a demand, it can be done.
#3 I get your point.
#4 I understand, but it isn't as if they just give the building to the teams... its a publicly owned building.
Publicly owned, but it doesn't generate revenue for the city. It generates revenue for the Bucks. If the city could truly own it, and attempt to generate revenue with it, then I think I could get on board.
-
Imagine your text here 2002MUalum
Yes, but the Bucks would pay to use the building.
I would go into the budget thing with you, but I guess there is a time and place for that.
-
And I saw a reference somewhere to $150 million pricetag!! The BC itself was $90 million in the late 1980s. Shake hands with $350-$400 million before you make it sexy.
XCEL Energy Center in St. Paul was built for $130 million in 2000 about $180 million in today's dollars. ESPN named it the top sports venue in the country in 2004. I have no idea about the cost but $400 million seems a little more than sexy.
-
Yes, but the Bucks would pay to use the building.
I would go into the budget thing with you, but I guess there is a time and place for that.
I was under the impression when these arenas are built, the teams essentially get to use the building for free or at "cost", and get to keep all of the additional revenue.
Am I wrong? Would the Bucks pay a significant amount for the lease? Does anybody know?
-
I was under the impression when these arenas are built, the teams essentially get to use the building for free or at "cost", and get to keep all of the additional revenue.
Am I wrong? Would the Bucks pay a significant amount for the lease? Does anybody know?
I can only bring up the Wild because of first hand knowledge. The Wild pay $3.5 million in annual rent on a 25 year lease with the city. They also have to pay annual payments towards property taxes, etc. These payments started at $2.5 million and escalate to $6 million a year during the 25 year lease term. The Wild get all the money from the naming rights to offset a portion of these payments.
-
I can only bring up the Wild because of first hand knowledge. The Wild pay $3.5 million in annual rent on a 25 year lease with the city. They also have to pay annual payments towards property taxes, etc. These payments started at $2.5 million and escalate to $6 million a year during the 25 year lease term. The Wild get all the money from the naming rights to offset a portion of these payments.
Cool. Thanks.
That's not insignificant as it would be over 100million over the course of 25years.
Definitely more than I thought they paid.
-
Yes, but the Bucks would pay to use the building.
I would go into the budget thing with you, but I guess there is a time and place for that.
Maybe they will pay to use the building. There are a number of teams that do not pay rent and are given that benefit to stay in a city or entice them to come to a city.
Charlotte Bobcats do not pay rent. The Vikings haven't for the last 9 years. The Penguins were offered rent free to move to Kansas City. The Columbus Blue Jackets do not pay rent
http://www.wfae.org/wfae/stat_search.cfm?id=8485&action=display
http://bloguin.com/puckdrunklove/2012-articles/march/public-ownership-of-nationwide-arena-keeps-blue-jackets-in-columbus.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2720130
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_Stadium
http://www.bluestemprairie.com/bluestemprairie/2012/04/emo-senator-mike-parry-thinks-free-rent-for-wilfs-hypothetical-soccer-team-is-awesome-.html
By the way, does this 1986 article about building the Bradley Center sound familiar?
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19860618&id=5KpRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sBIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4854,3410975
-
Someone please cite the "economic" studies for and against publicly financed stadia.
Not studies, but articles debating the merits, also a full video story done on Cleveland which I find to be quite similar to Milwaukee in size, geographic location (upper midwest), etc.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4116336/economist-no-economic-benefits-to-new-stadiums/
http://articles.herald-mail.com/2012-04-07/news/31306509_1_economic-impact-multiuse-stadium-minor-league-stadiums
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/summer_taxes_noll.aspx
-
The OKC Thunder will always have good attendance because it is the only show in town.
Just wait until they start losing...