For you NBA fans
http://saveourbucks.com/
Pretty awesome little grass roots thing those guys have started. They raised the $5000 for the billboard in about 48 hours. Getting lots of national attention as well. Their spokesman was on Dan Patrick show the day after Thanksgiving and the site has been mentioned on Yahoo Sports, by Chad Ford and in Bill Simmons' podcast this past week.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2013, 12:50:38 AM
For you NBA fans
http://saveourbucks.com/
I admire the spunk but Seattle is getting a team...
Quote from: keefe on December 10, 2013, 01:43:09 AM
I admire the spunk but Seattle is getting a team...
We could keep the bucks if Seattle and St Louis both say yes
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 10, 2013, 02:11:20 AM
We could keep the bucks if Seattle and St Louis both say yes
The problem for Milwaukee is that Seattle has a couple billionaires with the money and a plan for a state of the art game facility and major renovation of the SODO district which is immediately south of Safeco and Century Link. The political support is in place and Steve Balmer hopes to resurrect his rep after his mediocre run at MS. Sonics v 2.0.
With the first pick in the 2014 NBA draft, the Milwaukee Bucks select...
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 10, 2013, 06:11:14 AM
With the first pick in the 2014 NBA draft, the Milwaukee Bucks select...
Jabari, Julius, Andrew, Marcus...will take any
Quote from: keefe on December 10, 2013, 02:21:27 AM
The problem for Milwaukee is that Seattle has a couple billionaires with the money and a plan for a state of the art game facility and major renovation of the SODO district which is immediately south of Safeco and Century Link. The political support is in place and Steve Balmer hopes to resurrect his rep after his mediocre run at MS. Sonics v 2.0.
The problem for Seattle is that they couldn't get a deal done to keep the Sonics. Additionally, Kohl isn't selling the team.
Quote from: reinko on December 10, 2013, 07:04:51 AM
Jabari, Julius, Andrew, Marcus...will take any
Chicago would sh*t themselves if Milwaukee got Jabari when our Simeon son is turning out to be as injury prone as Greg Oden.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2013, 12:50:38 AM
For you NBA fans
http://saveourbucks.com/
I think that site does a pretty good job outlining the problems.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 10, 2013, 09:09:54 AM
The problem for Seattle is that they couldn't get a deal done to keep the Sonics. Additionally, Kohl isn't selling the team.
The problem for Milwaukee is that the league wants a stronger market. And Seattle has a plan and three billionaires who want a team. Howard Schultz didn't want to be an NBA owner anymore. Neither does Herb Kohl.
Quote from: keefe on December 10, 2013, 01:49:09 PM
The problem for Milwaukee is that the league wants a stronger market. And Seattle has a plan and three billionaires who want a team. Howard Schultz didn't want to be an NBA owner anymore. Neither does Herb Kohl.
Like Sacramento, if the Bucks get a new arena, they will be in Milwaukee for the next couple of decades.
I just don't think the new arena happens.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 10, 2013, 06:11:14 AM
With the first pick in the 2014 NBA draft, the Milwaukee Bucks select...
...Todd Mayo, guard, Marquette University.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 10, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
Like Sacramento, if the Bucks get a new arena, they will be in Milwaukee for the next couple of decades.
I just don't think the new arena happens.
Precisely. Kohl hasn't the time or the pockets and Milwaukee hasn't the will. Similar to, "If I were Tom Brady I would be sleeping with Gisele Bündchen..."
But make no mistake: The NBA isn't happy with their current portfolio of markets.
Seems to me it comes down to political will also. Will Kohl want to sell the team and take that hit. I realize he is no longer a Senator, but these guys love their legacies.
I have no idea why people think the Bucks are moving. Herb Kohl has said on numerous occasions that he isn't selling the team. If some day he does, he will only sell to someone that will keep the Bucks in Milwaukee.
Please, please someone show me something that he has said to the contrary.
The reason the Bucks aren't doing well financially is because they are the worst run franchise in the NBA. When the Bucks are good they make plenty of money. The "small market" excuse is a joke. Win some god damn ball games and people will come and see them. Sure the Bucks need a new arena, but if they don't they aren't just going to pick up and move. Something will get worked out.
Write it down.
He has said that he won't sell but I think a concern is what would happen to the team upon his death. He is an older man with no children and I don't think anyone really has any idea who he will be leaving the team to in the event of his passing.
In other news, saveourbucks has purchased it's billboard and it will be up on I-43 near McKinley Ave. Sounds like it will be there for a little over a month.
Quote from: Skitch on December 11, 2013, 10:48:02 PM
He has said that he won't sell but I think a concern is what would happen to the team upon his death. He is an older man with no children and I don't think anyone really has any idea who he will be leaving the team to in the event of his passing.
In other news, saveourbucks has purchased it's billboard and it will be up on I-43 near McKinley Ave. Sounds like it will be there for a little over a month.
Something I found interesting that I read was that Caron Butler on the Bucks, a Milwaukee native, said he is interested in purchasing the Bucks as part of a larger group, with I'm sure the intent being to keep them in Milwaukee. Butler would first have to be retired if this were to ever happen.
Quote from: Skitch on December 11, 2013, 10:48:02 PM
He is an older man with no children
At least Larry Craig went through the charade of a marriage
Quote from: Otule's Glass Eye on December 11, 2013, 10:52:35 PM
Something I found interesting that I read was that Caron Butler on the Bucks, a Milwaukee native, said he is interested in purchasing the Bucks as part of a larger group, with I'm sure the intent being to keep them in Milwaukee. Butler would first have to be retired if this were to ever happen.
Racine native
Quote from: keefe on December 12, 2013, 12:05:25 AM
No stranger to superb Kringle
Ah yes, Racine, Milwaukee's Kringleberry.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on December 12, 2013, 12:26:53 AM
Ah yes, Racine, Milwaukee's Kringleberry.
Pretty sure Racine has been shitty without the help of Milwaukee.
A few thoughts:
1) while I rarely go west of 60th street, a static billboard on I-43 North seems short-sighted. This is an increasingly west community. The 5K on Clear Channel could get them nice electronic rotations at many different locations; 94 West, 894, 41/45 and more.
2) this team is going nowhere. Seattle had a deal and it was perfect with the Kings but the nba said no. Why? Money. An expansion fee to Seattle will yield owners a lot more than a relocation fee will. Once the Bucks get their arena deal, the nba will award Seattle a team and each owner will walk away with at least 20 million dollars in their pocket.
3) in 2001 The Bucks had nba people calling their fans the best in the nba. That didn't last long but it was there. Adding Jabari to Giannis & Larry will be team on a collision with the World Championship.
4) hopefully The Senator suspends Larry for the season, citing conduct unbecoming of a Buck. No reason to win another game. Say what you will about our Dom Lobbing Ice Skater but he will play ball once he gets back. Effort is the last thing this team needs right now.
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 12:44:29 AM
A few thoughts:
1) while I rarely go west of 60th street, a static billboard on I-43 North seems short-sighted. This is an increasingly west community. The 5K on Clear Channel could get them nice electronic rotations at many different locations; 94 West, 894, 41/45 and more.
2) this team is going nowhere. Seattle had a deal and it was perfect with the Kings but the nba said no. Why? Money. An expansion fee to Seattle will yield owners a lot more than a relocation fee will. Once the Bucks get their arena deal, the nba will award Seattle a team and each owner will walk away with at least 20 million dollars in their pocket.
3) in 2001 The Bucks had nba people calling their fans the best in the nba. That didn't last long but it was there. Adding Jabari to Giannis & Larry will be team on a collision with the World Championship.
4) hopefully The Senator suspends Larry for the season, citing conduct unbecoming of a Buck. No reason to win another game. Say what you will about our Dom Lobbing Ice Skater but he will play ball once he gets back. Effort is the last thing this team needs right now.
(http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/17039649.jpg)
Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2013, 01:25:05 AM
(http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/17039649.jpg)
Nope. He is exactly right.
In addition to what he said:
5) It is EXTREMELY lucrative to own an NBA team... did you see the financial move the NBA pulled when they sold the New Orleans Hornets?
6) If Seattle couldn't pull the Kings away from Sacramento, they sure can't pull a more financially sound team out of Milwaukee... and Seattle offered $625 Million for the Kings.
7) Winning solves everything (doesn't everyone around here say that?)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 13, 2013, 07:40:15 AM
Nope. He is exactly right.
In addition to what he said:
5) It is EXTREMELY lucrative to own an NBA team... did you see the financial move the NBA pulled when they sold the New Orleans Hornets?
6) If Seattle couldn't pull the Kings away from Sacramento, they sure can't pull a more financially sound team out of Milwaukee... and Seattle offered $625 Million for the Kings.
7) Winning solves everything (doesn't everyone around here say that?)
It is lucrative to be an owner, that's why they WON'T expand. The vast majority of the revenue generation is either on paper(value of team) or from the media contracts. Splitting a media contract 31 or 32 ways as opposed to 30 doesn't create additional value for an owner. Additionally adding more franchises doesn't increase the paper value of a franchise, potentially lowers it(supply of teams for potential owners).
I don't think the Bucks move but there will be a team moving to Seattle WAY before a new team is formed for that need.
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 12:44:29 AM
A few thoughts:
2) this team is going nowhere. Seattle had a deal and it was perfect with the Kings but the nba said no. Why? Money. An expansion fee to Seattle will yield owners a lot more than a relocation fee will. Once the Bucks get their arena deal, the nba will award Seattle a team and each owner will walk away with at least 20 million dollars in their pocket.
Short term yes. Long term you are dividing up television contracts with another share - and I don't think the marginal increase in those contracts will come close to making up for the deficit.
Here are the last times you have seen expansions in the four major sports:
NBA: 2004 (Bobcats)
NFL: 2002 (Texans)
NHL: 2000 (Wild and Blue Jackets)
MLB: 1998 (Dbacks and Rays)
As their television product has become more and more nationalized, owners have realized that increasing the number of teams actually hurts their bottom line...and waters down their product. In fact, I think most leagues would rather contract than expand.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 13, 2013, 09:05:03 AM
Short term yes. Long term you are dividing up television contracts with another share - and I don't think the marginal increase in those contracts will come close to making up for the deficit.
As their television product has become more and more nationalized, owners have realized that increasing the number of teams actually hurts their bottom line...and waters down their product. In fact, I think most leagues would rather contract than expand.
Seattle is the #12 TV DMA in the US. We're not talking about expanding into Kansas City. Your point about dividing up revenues is well-taken but IMO, the market size of Seattle negates that concern.
I still have a few copies of the 45rpm single made by the Milwaukee Allstars "Let's Keep the Bucks in Milwaukee" from the mid 80's before the Pettit's made their generous donation to the city. Of course back then I actually cared about the Bucks future and went to alot of games when:
A. game tickets were cheap
B. the Bucks were winning the division regularly
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 09:19:22 AM
Seattle is the #12 TV DMA in the US. We're not talking about expanding into Kansas City. Your point about dividing up revenues is well-taken but IMO, the market size of Seattle negates that concern.
In the case of expansion, the question isn't just the size of the market. The question is that for *national* television contracts, how much *additional* viewership will be gained in Seattle versus those who already watch the NBA despite no team located there right now? My guess is that the slight marginal increase would not nearly translate into more money for other team owners since they are splitting the pot another way.
Now would they benefit from a team relocating from a market like Milwaukee to one in Seattle? Yes, very likely they would.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 13, 2013, 09:43:39 AM
In the case of expansion, the question isn't just the size of the market. The question is that for *national* television contracts, how much *additional* viewership will be gained in Seattle versus those who already watch the NBA despite no team located there right now? My guess is that the slight marginal increase would not nearly translate into more money for other team owners since they are splitting the pot another way.
Now would they benefit from a team relocating from a market like Milwaukee to one in Seattle? Yes, very likely they would.
+1
Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000
Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000
Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 09:54:56 AM
Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000
Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000
Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.
Good info...thanks.
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 09:54:56 AM
Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000
Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000
Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.
Except that's not the only decrease in revenue, the paper value potentially erodes as well. Additionally, you have the watering down of talent(worse product) as well as increasing FA competition (contract cost escalation).
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 09:54:56 AM
Annual NBA TV Rev: $930,000,000
Divided by 30 teams = $31,000,000
Divided by 31 teams = $30,000,000
Something tells me the owners will take the $20,000,000 upfront and hedge their bets they can increase the value to cover their 4% loss.
So the question is why haven't they pulled the trigger on an expansion? Based on that it should be a no brainer for them, why all the movement talk? Yes, some is leverage by the NBA to drive stadium building for teams like the Bucks, but if they are willing to expand, that bluff only works so long.
Speaking as a Hartfrod Whaler fan, you just don't want to lose your team because may never see another one.
Unlikely to expand. Just two years ago they were talking contraction.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
Unlikely to expand. Just two years ago they were talking contraction.
Because they were at the bargaining table with their union. NBA franchise fees are going through the roof, the sport is doing fine. Contraction talk was a ploy.
Quote from: The Lens on December 13, 2013, 01:23:12 PM
Because they were at the bargaining table with their union. NBA franchise fees are going through the roof, the sport is doing fine. Contraction talk was a ploy.
All correct, but there is no reason to expand....it's not like opening new markets by moving into China. Having a franchise in Seattle merely dilutes the other owners value without the equivalent increase in revenue. It's not like ESPN is going to pay less because they don't own the Seattle market.
Plus the owners are incentivized to use the move threat to leverage new facilities from communities so they don't have to spend money on it
Quote from: mu03eng on December 13, 2013, 01:31:01 PM
Plus the owners are incentivized to use the move threat to leverage new facilities from communities so they don't have to spend money on it
This. Every league needs one city realistically pressing for a team. It's why there's no NFL team in LA and why Montreal is all of a sudden gaining traction for an MLB team again. The marginal benefit of upgrading markets with an expansion or move is weighed against the realistic viability of the next city waiting in the wings for a franchise. If MKE isn't going to build a new arena, the Bucks wont move to Seattle until another city is prepared to assume Seattle's spot as the next city in line for a team.
Did anyone else read the subject line as Sav(e)ourBucks as in "delectable deer recipes for the winter and beyond"?
Billboard went up today on I-43
Got a story on Deadspin and Sporting News
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bb5BUZvIgAAwu96.jpg)