http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2013/05/nba-vote-on-kings-seattle-move-raises.html
NBA vote on Kings Seattle move raises stakes for Milwaukee
Rich Kirchen
The news that a group from Seattle has failed — for now — in its effort to lure the NBA's Sacramento Kings raises the stakes for Milwaukee leaders hoping to retain the Milwaukee Bucks, Mayor Tom Barrett told The Business Journal Tuesday.
I asked Barrett about the NBA developments after his luncheon talk Tuesday at the Rotary Club of Milwaukee.
An NBA committee's decision to block the Sacramento Kings from moving to Seattle has given rise to speculation that the Seattle ownership group might look to buy another franchise — possibly the Milwaukee Bucks.
Bucks executives have said the team is not for sale. However the Bucks and the NBA have said the team will need to leave Milwaukee after the 2016-2017 season unless a new arena is built.
An official discussion on a new downtown arena in Milwaukee has yet to start.
Barrett told me the initiative needs to come from "a number of places." Anyone who wants to maintain southeastern Wisconsin's status of hosting an NBA team needs to get involved, said Barrett, who counts himself among that group.
"We need to be pro-active and get the Bucks to stay here," Barrett told me.
Barrett reiterated his previous remarks that the Bucks are a regional asset and any funding for a new arena should be provided not only by taxpayers in Milwaukee County, but also surrounding counties. The state Legislature would have to approve a multi-county sales tax similar to the one-tenth of 1 percent tax still paying off the bill for constructing Miller Park.
So far, only the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce has promised to take action on the matter. MMAC president Tim Sheehy told me April 29 he now plans to convene a committee in May or June to study Milwaukee's needs for sports and cultural attractions and how to fund them.
They're not goin' anywhere.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 02, 2013, 01:08:01 PM
They're not goin' anywhere.
I agree. I hear talk of some local Milwaukee big wheels buying out the Senator when he's ready to sell.
How much will Marquette supply for a new facility?
It certainly is in Marquette's best interest to partner with a new facility. Again, another long term investment that requires a vision and some forward thinkin'.
Whether he bites or not is debatable, but Attanasio and probably members of his syndicate, have interest.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 02, 2013, 01:08:01 PM
They're not goin' anywhere.
agreed, What is overlooked in the talk of the Bucks moving is how Kohl won't sell to anyone that even hints at moving the bucks further than a few blocks from the BC
Quote from: Sir Lawrence on May 02, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
I agree. I hear talk of some local Milwaukee big wheels buying out the Senator when he's ready to sell.
How much will Marquette supply for a new facility?
Milwaukee big wheels = Leipold and Attanasion
How much will Marquette supply for a new facility? Likely $0 upfront, same as how their fee structure is now. They'll probably pay higher rent charges.
The bright side of the Bucks leaving is the hope that MU's hand will eventually be forced into building an on-campus, basketball-only arena.
Quote from: Benny B on May 02, 2013, 01:45:53 PM
The bright side of the Bucks leaving is the hope that MU's hand will eventually be forced into building an on-campus, basketball-only arena.
No part of that suggestion should be considered "Bright"
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 02, 2013, 01:23:49 PM
Milwaukee big wheels = Leipold and Attanasion
How much will Marquette supply for a new facility? Likely $0 upfront, same as how their fee structure is now. They'll probably pay higher rent charges.
There are people in Milwaukee...or at least SE Wisconsin...that are wealthier than both of them. Herb Kohler is probably wealthier than both of them combined.
The problem is that many people simply don't want to invest in a sports franchise.
Quote from: Sir Lawrence on May 02, 2013, 01:10:26 PM
I agree. I hear talk of some local Milwaukee big wheels buying out the Senator when he's ready to sell.
How much will Marquette supply for a new facility?
MU supplies dates = revenue. I doubt we put much capital into a building, if any at all. We will be a tenant, not an owner. The arena needs events and MU drives a bunch for games and graduation, etc.
Quote from: Benny B on May 02, 2013, 01:45:53 PM
The bright side of the Bucks leaving is the hope that MU's hand will eventually be forced into building an on-campus, basketball-only arena.
Why would the Bucks leaving force Marquette to build their own facility? If anything, it gives them more negotiating power at the BC because of sharply reduced demand.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 02:05:29 PM
There are people in Milwaukee...or at least SE Wisconsin...that are wealthier than both of them. Herb Kohler is probably wealthier than both of them combined.
The problem is that many people simply don't want to invest in a sports franchise.
True. The Miller Park tax will never be extended so its tough to do what OKC did in building a downtown and arena. The first Miller Park Tax got a lot of heat, but Imagine where the brewers would be today without that stadium.
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 02, 2013, 02:51:56 PM
True. The Miller Park tax will never be extended so its tough to do what OKC did in building a downtown and arena. The first Miller Park Tax got a lot of heat, but Imagine where the brewers would be today without that stadium.
Hell, imagine where Milwaukee would be? For all the angst, yelling, and bullsh*t that the sales tax caused, in retrospect it was an absolute no-brainer. And IMO you will probably see some sort of combination of the same, or similar tax, along with a contribution from Kohl himself to get a new arena done.
Not sure how feasible this would be, but it's an interesting idea.
http://www.620wtmj.com/sports/milwaukee-bucks/205803901.html
Quote from: MUfan12 on May 02, 2013, 04:10:26 PM
Not sure how feasible this would be, but it's an interesting idea.
http://www.620wtmj.com/sports/milwaukee-bucks/205803901.html
I love Milwaukee.
But only Milwaukee would think this is a feasible idea. This is something a Division 2 college should consider. Not a city that wants to retain an NBA team.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 04:18:46 PM
I love Milwaukee.
But only Milwaukee would think this is a feasible idea. This is something a Division 2 college should consider. Not a city that wants to retain an NBA team.
We're
that desperate for a new arena (without continuing the MP Sales tax, raising new taxes, increasing spending or getting anything less that 100% privately funds)
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 04:18:46 PM
I love Milwaukee.
But only Milwaukee would think this is a feasible idea. This is something a Division 2 college should consider. Not a city that wants to retain an NBA team.
Go from having a giant cinder block in the middle of downtown to a giant pillow.
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 02, 2013, 04:38:23 PM
We're that desperate for a new arena (without continuing the MP Sales tax, raising new taxes, increasing spending or getting anything less that 100% privately funds)
What exactly is the opposition to continuing the Miller Park sales tax? Seems like the obvious choice for funding... no one would even feel it
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 02:57:51 PM
Hell, imagine where Milwaukee would be? For all the angst, yelling, and bullsh*t that the sales tax caused, in retrospect it was an absolute no-brainer. And IMO you will probably see some sort of combination of the same, or similar tax, along with a contribution from Kohl himself to get a new arena done.
Milwaukee would be fine. Milwaukee was fine when the Braves left, they were fine before the Bucks came. Different, but fine. Los Angeles isn't any better or lessor because it doesn't have a football team (that won't stop some leaders to do what they can to make it happen). The BS comes from publicly supporting teams when there are many more high priority issues that need to be taken care. At some point the teams, local corporations, etc need to pay the freight (most of it) and not burden everyone else while the local school system burns to the ground. All about priorities.
I'm as big a sports fan as there is, it's part of my career, but many of us draw the line on what dollars should be used for. It's a shiny toy. Does anyone really believe Nashville is more major league than Houston because Nashville has a NHL team and Houston doesn't? How did D.C. survive all those years after the Senators left before the Nationals came? If the Marlins left Florida tomorrow, would all 17 people that care form a protest around the mayor's office? Indianapolis and Jacksonville have a NFL team but Portland, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Louisville, Columbus, etc do not. It's become laughable out here, we're just part of the NFL extortion game to get better stadium deals for other cities...that's L.A.'s role. The Bucks will do the same thing, play on the fear of losing the team to extort more money, raise taxes (justifying it by saying its a sin tax or an out of market tax for hotel \ rent a car \ etc). They are nice to have, but not end of the world if they leave.
I get that it is a source of civic pride and there are halo effects to all of this (almost always totally overstated on revenue impact studies), especially with smaller mid-size cities. It seems they attach so much of their worth and well being to the presence of a team and they are so worried they will be somehow viewed as less without them. Seattle is still Seattle, even without the Sonics. If they get a team, fine. If they don't, Seattle still survives just fine.
I know a lot of people will disagree and I get it.
Riddle me this:
Right now which franchise is more valuable, the Milwaukee Bucks or the Milwaukee Brewers? Not "valuable to the community" but "valuable to purchase."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 02, 2013, 05:12:53 PM
Milwaukee would be fine. Milwaukee was fine when the Braves left, they were fine before the Bucks came. Different, but fine. Los Angeles isn't any better or lessor because it doesn't have a football team (that won't stop some leaders to do what they can to make it happen). The BS comes from publicly supporting teams when there are many more high priority issues that need to be taken care. At some point the teams, local corporations, etc need to pay the freight (most of it) and not burden everyone else while the local school system burns to the ground. All about priorities.
I'm as big a sports fan as there is, it's part of my career, but many of us draw the line on what dollars should be used for. It's a shiny toy. Does anyone really believe Nashville is more major league than Houston because Nashville has a NHL team and Houston doesn't? How did D.C. survive all those years after the Senators left before the Nationals came? If the Marlins left Florida tomorrow, would all 17 people that care form a protest around the mayor's office? Indianapolis and Jacksonville have a NFL team but Portland, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Louisville, Columbus, etc do not. It's become laughable out here, we're just part of the NFL extortion game to get better stadium deals for other cities...that's L.A.'s role. The Bucks will do the same thing, play on the fear of losing the team to extort more money, raise taxes (justifying it by saying its a sin tax or an out of market tax for hotel \ rent a car \ etc). They are nice to have, but not end of the world if they leave.
I get that it is a source of civic pride and there are halo effects to all of this (almost always totally overstated on revenue impact studies), especially with smaller mid-size cities. It seems they attach so much of their worth and well being to the presence of a team and they are so worried they will be somehow viewed as less without them. Seattle is still Seattle, even without the Sonics. If they get a team, fine. If they don't, Seattle still survives just fine.
I know a lot of people will disagree and I get it.
OKC ended up with the Sonics...but there's not a person on the planet who thinks OKC is a better city than Seattle. Sports teams can
enhance a city—but they don't
make a city.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 02, 2013, 02:24:47 PM
Why would the Bucks leaving force Marquette to build their own facility? If anything, it gives them more negotiating power at the BC because of sharply reduced demand.
Without the revenue from the Bucks, the BC's days are numbered. Sure, MU might be able to negotiate a better deal, but that's only temporary as it's going to expedite the BC's demise... MU and the Admirals cannot support the upkeep requirements at the BC on their own. The talk about a new stadium isn't solely because the NBA and the Bucks
want a new arena, it's that they are going to
need a new arena soon. The BC is 25 years old, and without a major capital infusion, the arena likely has only 10-15 years of useful life left, functional obsolescence (by NBA standards) aside.
No, it wouldn't happen the day after the Bucks leave town, but as long as there's an NBA franchise around, MU will never have to build its own arena. And quite honestly, I don't see Milwaukee building a new arena anytime soon (i.e. in the next 5-10 years)... at least not on the public dime.
Quote from: Benny B on May 02, 2013, 05:22:49 PM
Without the revenue from the Bucks, the BC's days are numbered. Sure, MU might be able to negotiate a better deal, but that's only temporary as it's going to expedite the BC's demise... MU and the Admirals cannot support the upkeep requirements at the BC on their own. The talk about a new stadium isn't solely because the NBA and the Bucks want a new arena, it's that they are going to need a new arena soon. The BC is 25 years old, and without a major capital infusion, the arena likely has only 10-15 years of useful life left, functional obsolescence (by NBA standards) aside.
No, it wouldn't happen the day after the Bucks leave town, but as long as there's an NBA franchise around, MU will never have to build its own arena. And quite honestly, I don't see Milwaukee building a new arena anytime soon (i.e. in the next 5-10 years)... at least not on the public dime.
Crazy to think that a 25 year old arena is now an obsolete fossil. Ridiculous. Look at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta....same deal. The sports stadium/arena arms race is out of control.
Meanwhile, our schools, roads, and bridges keep crumbling.....
Quote from: Groin_pull on May 02, 2013, 05:21:38 PM
OKC ended up with the Sonics...but there's not a person on the planet who thinks OKC is a better city than Seattle. Sports teams can enhance a city—but they don't make a city.
I agree with you, but some people think otherwise.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 02:05:29 PM
There are people in Milwaukee...or at least SE Wisconsin...that are wealthier than both of them. Herb Kohler is probably wealthier than both of them combined.
The problem is that many people simply don't want to invest in a sports franchise.
This is so incredibly wrong I don't know where to start. There are a TON of wealthy people lined up to buy NBA franchises. Recently, they have been one of the best investments for the super rich. Look no further than the Charlotte Bobcats recent history.
Quote from: Groin_pull on May 02, 2013, 05:26:37 PM
Crazy to think that a 25 year old arena is now an obsolete fossil. Ridiculous. Look at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta....same deal. The sports stadium/arena arms race is out of control.
Meanwhile, our schools, roads, and bridges keep crumbling.....
Not really. 25 years old is right around home computers started arriving in most people's homes. 25 years ago you had to have a cell phone the size of a briefcase. 25 years ago the Berlin Wall was just coming down. 25 years ago MTV still played videos. Most importantly, 25 years ago the Cubs had only not won the World Series 75 years straight! HOLEY COW! While it may not seem like that long to the older generations on this board, it was.
And I don't really follow the logic that if we build a stadium that we can't pay for schools, roads, and bridges. But really I don't think we want to get started on that topic. :)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 02, 2013, 06:08:59 PM
Not really. 25 years old is right around home computers started arriving in most people's homes. 25 years ago you had to have a cell phone the size of a briefcase. 25 years ago the Berlin Wall was just coming down. 25 years ago MTV still played videos. Most importantly, 25 years ago the Cubs had only not won the World Series 75 years straight! HOLEY COW! While it may not seem like that long to the older generations on this board, it was.
And I don't really follow the logic that if we build a stadium that we can't pay for schools, roads, and bridges. But really I don't think we want to get started on that topic. :)
You don't see how building a new publicly-financed arena would mean there would be less money for schools, roads, and bridges?
Not sure where you live, but Milwaukee is like the majority of US cities...struggling with rising debt and unable to pay for basic services.
Quote from: Groin_pull on May 02, 2013, 05:26:37 PM
Crazy to think that a 25 year old arena is now an obsolete fossil. Ridiculous. Look at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta....same deal. The sports stadium/arena arms race is out of control.
Meanwhile, our schools, roads, and bridges keep crumbling.....
Groin, some of the arenas built in 1987-88 (BC era) are already gone. Miami Arena was built around then and was replaced 11 years later. It has already been demolished. 11 years...what a terrific waste.
After all those rich people who want to buy a sports franchise "pay therir fair share" will they have enough left to buy a team?
Quote from: Groin_pull on May 02, 2013, 06:15:42 PM
You don't see how building a new publicly-financed arena would mean there would be less money for schools, roads, and bridges?
Not sure where you live, but Milwaukee is like the majority of US cities...struggling with rising debt and unable to pay for basic services.
No, because they aren't tied together at all. If the Miller Park tax is just continued it is a part of the sales tax. That money doesn't take away from those other problems. Period. What does take away from schools etc. is the way our government spends its money.
Basically, if there isn't a sales tax for a new Bucks arena then there isn't magically money available unless you keep the tax and apply it to the things you suggested.
Quote from: Groin_pull on May 02, 2013, 05:26:37 PM
Crazy to think that a 25 year old arena is now an obsolete fossil.
Anyone who thinks that the BC is a crappy stadium to play D1 basketball in should watch a game at Rupp Arena. It's the Allstate Arena, only twice as large, with 1970's-era scoreboards.
Oh, and no booze, either.
Quote from: Benny B on May 02, 2013, 05:22:49 PM
Without the revenue from the Bucks, the BC's days are numbered. Sure, MU might be able to negotiate a better deal, but that's only temporary as it's going to expedite the BC's demise... MU and the Admirals cannot support the upkeep requirements at the BC on their own.
So you believe that the BC would simply cease to exist? Really? How 'bout looking one block to the north for a precedent? In the 1930's the Milwaukee Auditorium was built, it still remains a useful facility albeit in a slightly different format. In the 1950's the new Milwaukee Arena opened and was the city's premiere facility until the 1980's. Does it even have a regular tenant since UWM went back to campus. Funny, I seem to walk by it frequently in the winter.
And don't discount the possibility that MKE might attract an NHL franchise if the Bucks were to leave. No need to remind me about the Blackhawks' historic position on the topic. But understand that Rocky Wertz isn't his neanderthal father and might even see the benefit of a rival 90 miles to the north.
Quote from: jsglow on May 02, 2013, 09:40:53 PM
So you believe that the BC would simply cease to exist? Really? How 'bout looking one block to the north for a precedent? In the 1930's the Milwaukee Auditorium was built, it still remains a useful facility albeit in a slightly different format. In the 1950's the new Milwaukee Arena opened and was the city's premiere facility until the 1980's. Does it even have a regular tenant since UWM went back to campus. Funny, I seem to walk by it frequently in the winter.
And don't discount the possibility that MKE might attract an NHL franchise if the Bucks were to leave. No need to remind me about the Blackhawks' historic position on the topic. But understand that Rocky Wertz isn't his neanderthal father and might even see the benefit of a rival 90 miles to the north.
The Auditorium, now the "Milwaukee Theatre" opened in 1909. In 2001 or 2002 it was renovated. It is, quite honestly, a white elephant. A classic example of city politics and cronyism propping up a red ink venue.
The Arena opened in 1950. The Bucks and Marquette played there for many years. It was renovated in the late nineties. Many, many concerts. In my opinion, it still has revenue value.
The Bradley Center, opening in 1988, is like much from that particular era. Bad fashion, bad music, bad beer, bad Marquette basketball, bad design.
Of the three buildings, if I were King, I'd save the Arena and bulldoze the other two.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 02, 2013, 05:08:11 PM
What exactly is the opposition to continuing the Miller Park sales tax? Seems like the obvious choice for funding... no one would even feel it
It's an incredibly obvious solution. It's a fraction of a percent a doesn't make the 5 county area a "tax island". Frankly most people have probably forgotten that the miller park tax even exists. The only people up in arms about it probably dont even know how much it is.
However and somewhat unfortunately, the obvious solution isn't the most electable one. And continuing the miller park tax would be a state issue.
I'm glad to see that Hards understands fiscal policy a whole lot better than groin... The miller park tax is a sales tax for MP not taking money away from things...
I thought there was previously talk about joining with the convention board and sharing their revenue streams.
Quote from: jsglow on May 02, 2013, 09:40:53 PM
So you believe that the BC would simply cease to exist? Really? How 'bout looking one block to the north for a precedent? In the 1930's the Milwaukee Auditorium was built, it still remains a useful facility albeit in a slightly different format. In the 1950's the new Milwaukee Arena opened and was the city's premiere facility until the 1980's. Does it even have a regular tenant since UWM went back to campus. Funny, I seem to walk by it frequently in the winter.
And don't discount the possibility that MKE might attract an NHL franchise if the Bucks were to leave. No need to remind me about the Blackhawks' historic position on the topic. But understand that Rocky Wertz isn't his neanderthal father and might even see the benefit of a rival 90 miles to the north.
(One block to the south.)
I haven't seen the Auditorium's or Arena's finances, but I would have to assume that both are being subsidized by state or local gov't. Sure, the Arena usefulness, but not for high-major D-I or NBA basketball. Even if the city/state could tolerate (and minimally maintain) two old, underutilized arenas 100 feet apart from each other, MU isn't going to want to play at the BC if it goes the way of the Arena. Neither will an NHL team (screw you Bettman).
Will the BC cease to exist if the Bucks leave? No... I think the Arena gets the ol' Vegas "land-renewal" first. But again, without a major capital infusion it won't be long before the BC's marquee is hawking the Shrine Circus, MATC graduation, semi-pro wrestling, a touring tribute to REO Speedwagon, and - if there's enough letters left - REO Speedwagon.
Quote from: Red Stripe on May 03, 2013, 07:28:00 AM
I thought there was previously talk about joining with the convention board and sharing their revenue streams.
The Wisconsin Center District. which receives no property tax money or Federal, State or local subsidies. They do get money from hotel and car rentals however...
Quote from: jsglow on May 02, 2013, 09:40:53 PM
And don't discount the possibility that MKE might attract an NHL franchise if the Bucks were to leave. No need to remind me about the Blackhawks' historic position on the topic. But understand that Rocky Wertz isn't his neanderthal father and might even see the benefit of a rival 90 miles to the north.
Given that Quebec, Portland and Kansas City are all ahead of Milwaukee in that queue, I'd (unfortunately) discount that possibility
Quote from: Benny B on May 03, 2013, 09:09:44 AM
(One block to the south.)
I haven't seen the Auditorium's or Arena's finances, but I would have to assume that both are being subsidized by state or local gov't. Sure, the Arena usefulness, but not for high-major D-I or NBA basketball. Even if the city/state could tolerate (and minimally maintain) two old, underutilized arenas 100 feet apart from each other, MU isn't going to want to play at the BC if it goes the way of the Arena. Neither will an NHL team (screw you Bettman).
Will the BC cease to exist if the Bucks leave? No... I think the Arena gets the ol' Vegas "land-renewal" first. But again, without a major capital infusion it won't be long before the BC's marquee is hawking the Shrine Circus, MATC graduation, semi-pro wrestling, a touring tribute to REO Speedwagon, and - if there's enough letters left - REO Speedwagon.
Sorry about my directional fopa! Of course it's south. ::) I only lived in Brewcity for 22 years. Thanks for the fix.
I agree with you about the 'downward mobility' of the BC post Bucks. But one does need to understand that Milwaukee has limited financial resources and simply might not be an NBA city long term. IF that becomes the case, the BC would represent one of the nicer facilities nationwide that doesn't house an NBA franchise and would certainly tap public financial support for operations, as necessary. Warriorchick pointed to Rupp Arena. I promise you, that place is a giant dump in a crappy town but it serves an important purpose. At the other end of the scale (and state, for that matter), let's look at the KFC Yum Center. They've got Louisville basketball (fantastic) and nothing else but the circus and REO Speedwagon going for them. That's a recipe for bankruptcy or the need for huge subsidies from the public to pay off the construction bonds.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 02:05:29 PM
There are people in Milwaukee...or at least SE Wisconsin...that are wealthier than both of them. Herb Kohler is probably wealthier than both of them combined.
The problem is that many people simply don't want to invest in a sports franchise.
Johnsons, Kohler, The former Kellogg, Dianne Hendricks, Comer,
Quote from: Sir Lawrence on May 02, 2013, 05:17:29 PM
Riddle me this:
Right now which franchise is more valuable, the Milwaukee Bucks or the Milwaukee Brewers? Not "valuable to the community" but "valuable to purchase."
I don't know if this answers your question, but Forbes has the Bucks listed as worth $258M and the Brewers at $376M
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Milwaukee-Bucks_325937.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Milwaukee-Brewers_337147.html
Quote from: WI_inferiority_complexes on May 03, 2013, 11:32:53 AM
I don't know if this answers your question, but Forbes has the Bucks listed as worth $258M and the Brewers at $376M
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Milwaukee-Bucks_325937.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Milwaukee-Brewers_337147.html
It does and doesn't. Those sources are dated, and the reason I asked is that I always assumed the Brewers were worth more than the Bucks, but I'm not certain that is true. TV dollars, not surprisingly, are driving my thinking here.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 02, 2013, 05:57:52 PM
This is so incredibly wrong I don't know where to start. There are a TON of wealthy people lined up to buy NBA franchises. Recently, they have been one of the best investments for the super rich. Look no further than the Charlotte Bobcats recent history.
A ton of people want to own an NBA franchise with a tax-payer purchased stadium that has tons of revenue streams.
The fundamental problem is that the NBA business model is broken for most markets. Owners cannot afford to pay for their own building, and they are demanding the tax payers fund it so the team can be profitable. Without the tax payer, the teams aren't sustainable. That's a bad business model.
If you can't pay for the infrastructure your business needs, then your business model sucks, and it's time to go out of business.
If only 10 cities can really afford NBA teams, then it should be a 10 team league. If those teams want to help subsidize another 20 teams, then so be it.
Eh...
If a city wants to build an arena to attract an NBA team, it is their right to do so.
Quote from: jsglow on May 03, 2013, 10:48:37 AM
Sorry about my directional fopa! Of course it's south. ::) I only lived in Brewcity for 22 years. Thanks for the fix.
I agree with you about the 'downward mobility' of the BC post Bucks. But one does need to understand that Milwaukee has limited financial resources and simply might not be an NBA city long term. IF that becomes the case, the BC would represent one of the nicer facilities nationwide that doesn't house an NBA franchise and would certainly tap public financial support for operations, as necessary. Warriorchick pointed to Rupp Arena. I promise you, that place is a giant dump in a crappy town but it serves an important purpose. At the other end of the scale (and state, for that matter), let's look at the KFC Yum Center. They've got Louisville basketball (fantastic) and nothing else but the circus and REO Speedwagon going for them. That's a recipe for bankruptcy or the need for huge subsidies from the public to pay off the construction bonds.
Rupp Arena is a dump because it can be. Wrigley Field could collapse at any moment, but that doesn't prevent over 30k fans from showing up on game day. The fan base is so large that the venue's condition has no material relevance to popularity. Heck... the Ricketts are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars "upgrading Wrigley" very soon, but only a small portion of that is actually going into the existing stadium.
My point is that model of venue in major sports cannot be universally duplicated. Even with the same success that the Brewers have experienced over the past 5 years, if they were still playing in County Stadium, they wouldn't be drawing 2M fans, let alone the nearly 3M they have been drawing the past few seasons.
Let's look about halfway between the BC and Rupp... Adolph was still coaching high school basketball when Hinkle opened. If MSG is the Mecca of basketball, then there must be 40 virgins in Hinkle, yet Butler has had to put a significant amount of money into keeping Hinkle relevant... $16M was the latest figure (originally $25M, but scaled back a year later), of which $12M has been raised. I thought I once heard the cost to renovate the BC was going to be in excess of $70M.
I can't see anyone putting even $7M into the BC if the Bucks left, and I can't see MU wanting to play in a BC on life-support 10-15 years from now. Heck, $70M is more than what it cost to build the Sears Centre (and that's Chicago construction prices) - MU doesn't need to build a $250M YUM or Knight monstrosity.
The question is would MU want to raise/spend the $60-80M necessary to build an on-campus arena? The answer to that - right now - is most definitely a "no." However, I personally think that "no" becomes an unequivocal "yes" in less than a decade if the Bucks leave and the BC isn't kept up to today's, let alone tomorrow's, standards.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 03, 2013, 12:17:00 PM
A ton of people want to own an NBA franchise with a tax-payer purchased stadium that has tons of revenue streams.
The fundamental problem is that the NBA business model is broken for most markets. Owners cannot afford to pay for their own building, and they are demanding the tax payers fund it so the team can be profitable. Without the tax payer, the teams aren't sustain't I dimble. That's a bad business model.
If you can't pay for the infrastructure your business needs, then your business model sucks, and it's time to go out of business.
If only 10 cities can really afford NBA teams, then it should be a 10 team league. If those teams want to help subsidize another 20 teams, then so be it.
Sigh. Yes, lets contract all professional sports teams that need new stadiums, but want city money to pay for them. Lets be realistic.
Someone explain to me how dismantling an arena, shipping it across the entire Atlantic and half the US, then reassembling it after modifing it for cold Milwaukee winters is cheaper than building a new arena.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 03, 2013, 12:48:43 PM
Sigh. Yes, lets contract all professional sports teams that need new stadiums, but want city money to pay for them. Lets be realistic.
I know I sound like some sort of libertarian nutjob (I'm not), but what I wrote is true.
To say that their is a laundry list of people waiting to buy NBA teams isn't exactly accurate. There is a laundry list of people waiting to buy publicly subsidized NBA franchises.
The NBA business model is BAD for the majority of franchises. It's not sustainable without public funding.
I like basketball, and I'm ok with tax funded initiatives. However, I just don't see a new arena as a good investment for the city, and is pretty much just a hand out to a billionaire owner.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on May 03, 2013, 12:54:11 PM
Someone explain to me how dismantling an arena, shipping it across the entire Atlantic and half the US, then reassembling it after modifing it for cold Milwaukee winters is cheaper than building a new arena.
Its made out of PVC (no joke)
That they are even considering it is a testament to how dumb Wisconsinites are being about this.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 02, 2013, 05:57:52 PM
This is so incredibly wrong I don't know where to start. There are a TON of wealthy people lined up to buy NBA franchises. Recently, they have been one of the best investments for the super rich. Look no further than the Charlotte Bobcats recent history.
I meant local Wisconsinites who are wealthy enough to own one.
Quote from: Benny B on May 03, 2013, 12:30:50 PM
Heck, $70M is more than what it cost to build the Sears Centre (and that's Chicago construction prices) - MU doesn't need to build a $250M YUM or Knight monstrosity.
The question is would MU want to raise/spend the $60-80M necessary to build an on-campus arena? The answer to that - right now - is most definitely a "no." However, I personally think that "no" becomes an unequivocal "yes" in less than a decade if the Bucks leave and the BC isn't kept up to today's, let alone tomorrow's, standards.
Assuming proper maintenance and reasonable modernization of the BC along the lines of the money spent by BMO Harris in the last year, I believe that a Marquette version of the Sears Center is not a superior alternative for the forseeable future (I'll use my lifetime and I'm in my 50s). I'll point to DePaul. They've been unable to pull the trigger on a lousy situation for decades. And no Marquette fan reasonably believes our current arena situation is 'lousy'. And not to add fuel to the fire but let's envision the 1,000 page thread right here on Scoop lamenting 'No Beer Sales Anymore!!!???'
That said, I've enjoyed our thoughtful and well reasoned exchange. Have a great weekend Benny.
Quote from: jsglow on May 03, 2013, 01:33:20 PM
Assuming proper maintenance and reasonable modernization of the BC along the lines of the money spent by BMO Harris in the last year, I believe that a Marquette version of the Sears Center is not a superior alternative for the forseeable future (I'll use my lifetime and I'm in my 50s). I'll point to DePaul. They've been unable to pull the trigger on a lousy situation for decades. And no Marquette fan reasonably believes our current arena situation is 'lousy'. And not to add fuel to the fire but let's envision the 1,000 page thread right here on Scoop lamenting 'No Beer Sales Anymore!!!???'
That said, I've enjoyed our thoughtful and well reasoned exchange. Have a great weekend Benny.
Well... it
was a well-reasoned exchange until you brought up DePaul.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 03, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
I know I sound like some sort of libertarian nutjob (I'm not), but what I wrote is true.
To say that their is a laundry list of people waiting to buy NBA teams isn't exactly accurate. There is a laundry list of people waiting to buy publicly subsidized NBA franchises.
The NBA business model is BAD for the majority of franchises. It's not sustain't I dimble without public funding.
I like basketball, and I'm ok with tax funded initiatives. However, I just don't see a new arena as a good investment for the city, and is pretty much just a hand out to a billionaire owner.
I get your point, I just think its flippant. The reality is that these organizations will continue to obtain government funding for new arenas. It is either that or they take the show on the road to someone who will. Personally, I think if the Bucks were good we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the Bucks were run like the SA Spurs there would already be a new stadium in the works. The fact is the Bucks stink. If they were the hottest ticket in town, it wouldn't be a question.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 03, 2013, 01:41:12 PM
I get your point, I just think its flippant. The reality is that these organizations will continue to obtain government funding for new arenas. It is either that or they take the show on the road to someone who will. Personally, I think if the Bucks were good we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the Bucks were run like the SA Spurs there would already be a new stadium in the works. The fact is the Bucks stink. If they were the hottest ticket in town, it wouldn't be a question.
That's probably correct.
But, if all fairness, if they had a history of being good, and selling out games, the investment is much better because 20K fans 41 times per year is better than 14K fans 41 times per year.
I still don't think it's a good investment, but a winning franchise is a better bet.
Now, baseball is a bit of a different story because to me it draws so many more people for so many more days. It's not downtown, which limits it's economic impact, but nevertheless, 30,000 x 81 games is nice.
I understand that pro-sports are going to force the cities/states into paying for arenas, but there is a breaking point. It's not infinite. At some point enough cities will say "no thanks" and the carousel will stop. Would you pay 2 billion to keep the Bucks?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 03, 2013, 02:07:31 PM
That's probably correct.
But, if all fairness, if they had a history of being good, and selling out games, the investment is much better because 20K fans 41 times per year is better than 14K fans 41 times per year.
I still don't think it's a good investment, but a winning franchise is a better bet.
Now, baseball is a bit of a different story because to me it draws so many more people for so many more days. It's not downtown, which limits it's economic impact, but nevertheless, 30,000 x 81 games is nice.
I understand that pro-sports are going to force the cities/states into paying for arenas, but there is a breaking point. It's not infinite. At some point enough cities will say "no thanks" and the carousel will stop. Would you pay 2 billion to keep the Bucks?
However, a new arena could be used for more than Bucks basketball. There is MU basketball...hockey...concerts...and conventions.
What I don't understand is the public money spent on NFL stadiums. That's harder to justify. 2 preseason games and 8 regular season games. After that, it pretty much sits vacant for the rest of the year.
Quote from: Groin_pull on May 03, 2013, 02:20:05 PM
However, a new arena could be used for more than Bucks basketball. There is MU basketball...hockey...concerts...and conventions.
What I don't understand is the public money spent on NFL stadiums. That's harder to justify. 2 preseason games and 8 regular season games. After that, it pretty much sits vacant for the rest of the year.
I don't like NFL stadiums either.
You are correct that other events could be held there, but the BC, as it stands, is fine for all of those things.
The reason Milwaukee needs a new arena is simply because the Bucks need more revenue streams. That's it.
Quote from: Terror Skink on May 02, 2013, 04:18:46 PM
I love Milwaukee.
But only Milwaukee would think this is a feasible idea. This is something a Division 2 college should consider. Not a city that wants to retain an NBA team.
As long as we're being realistic, look! We can knock down Sinai and import Allen Fieldhouse!
Quote from: Cooby Snacks on May 03, 2013, 03:30:19 PM
As long as we're being realistic, look! We can knock down Sinai and import Allen Fieldhouse!
Is that all you got?!? Prepared to be bedazzled by the miracle of MS-Paint.
Quote from: Benny B on May 03, 2013, 03:45:17 PM
Is that all you got?!? Prepared to be bedazzled by the miracle of MS-Paint.
Oh yeah?
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 03, 2013, 12:55:42 PM
The NBA business model is BAD for the majority of franchises. It's not sustain't I dimble without public funding.
Interesting autocorrect you got there. But at least it's consistent.
Quote from: Cooby Snacks on May 03, 2013, 03:58:12 PM
Oh yeah?
Yeah... well MSG comes with a Wine and Spirits shop (a natural fit for campus)
and the Jewish Theater of New York (that's how we keep the peace with building on Sinai).