http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2015/01/02/bucks-to-unveil-arena-site-financing-by-end-of.html?ana=twt
Anyone here really think MU will kick in? The next question should then be, why?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 02, 2015, 03:13:34 PM
Anyone here really think MU will kick in? The next question should then be, why?
The only "why" part I can think of for the time being is to get input in how the seating goes. Perhaps something more conducive to a "student section" than just a thrown in portion of the seats.
Will the Admirals be kicking in any money for this? They use the stadium more than Marquette does I presume? Or will the new stadium not include the ability to convert?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 02, 2015, 03:13:34 PM
Anyone here really think MU will kick in? The next question should then be, why?
I think MU does, in lieu of some sort of rental agreement or some modification thereof said agreement. Depending on the location chosen, they may be donating the land as their contribution because some of the $500 mil price tag is land acquisition.
Ya really think it's goin' up on 8th and Michigan?
Depending on the initial investment, I can see MU kicking in if they're given a percentage of the parking/alchohol/concessions money for events at the arena. Right now, I think they only get gate revenue.
Right now, Lasry and Edens wanna own this sucker, but have the public kick in. That may fly in NY, not here in Bumblefook. If they can't get that to go, they'll take it private, call all the shots, and MKE will be SOL.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 02, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
Right now, Lasry and Edens wanna own this sucker, but have the public kick in. That may fly in NY, not here in Bumblefook. If they can't get that to go, they'll take it private, call all the shots, and MKE will be SOL.
What part of a private stadium would make MKE SOL?
Quote from: ZiggysChestHair on January 02, 2015, 04:05:23 PM
What part of a private stadium would make MKE SOL?
For one, it won't be here.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 02, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
Right now, Lasry and Edens wanna own this sucker, but have the public kick in. That may fly in NY, not here in Bumblefook. If they can't get that to go, they'll take it private, call all the shots, and MKE will be SOL.
So MKE expects these guys to fork up hundreds of millions but then not own the place?
Invest in it if the return is right. Determining design/seating, advantage in rent agreement, getting additional revenue...plenty of negotiating points. Being another voice making demands but not chipping in just gives less leverage when we complain that our new home isn't ideal when we have to be stuck with it for 30+ years.
Quote from: ZiggysChestHair on January 02, 2015, 04:05:23 PM
What part of a private stadium would make MKE SOL?
The part that gets put in Seattle.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 02, 2015, 04:45:31 PM
So MKE expects these guys to fork up hundreds of millions but then not own the place?
Likewise, the city and state aren't gonna partner up and turn over the keys to the joint either.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 02, 2015, 05:13:50 PM
Likewise, the city and state aren't gonna partner up and turn over the keys to the joint either.
And end up with nothing. So very Milwaukee.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 02, 2015, 05:18:46 PM
And end up with nothing. So very Milwaukee.
No, In Milwaukee we dick around forever, then build it too small in a place no-one wants to go, then try to put a trolley car line in and claim that will bring people to the arena.
Milwaukee is a nice little town, but it's not exactly packed with big ideas. Hoping I'm wrong, but I think Milwaukee will still find a way to fumble this. Those NY owners must still be reeling from the culture shock they experienced when they first came to town.
Quote from: JakeBarnes on January 02, 2015, 03:27:44 PM
The only "why" part I can think of for the time being is to get input in how the seating goes. Perhaps something more conducive to a "student section" than just a thrown in portion of the seats.
I don't think Marquette is worried about a student section at $99 per student for the year.
Quote from: connie on January 02, 2015, 04:42:20 PM
For one, it won't be here.
They can't build it anywhere else. The sale agreement forbids moving the team. If the city and owners don't agree to an arena, they can only sell it back to the NBA, who is then free to sell it to anyone else.
There is no guarantee, they would be owners then and would have to invest considerably more than the current deal to move the franchise.
Quote from: forgetful on January 02, 2015, 08:15:00 PM
They can't build it anywhere else. The sale agreement forbids moving the team. If the city and owners don't agree to an arena, they can only sell it back to the NBA, who is then free to sell it to anyone else.
There is no guarantee, they would be owners then and would have to invest considerably more than the current deal to move the franchise.
Can you show us a link to this? I heard this but I also heard this isn't true. I believe it is more of a good faith agreement than anything else but there hasn't been anything official reported.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 02, 2015, 09:02:19 PM
Can you show us a link to this? I heard this but I also heard this isn't true. I believe it is more of a good faith agreement than anything else but there hasn't been anything official reported.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/06/28/losing-my-mind-over-the-milwaukee-bucks-sale/
My hope is that the Bucks chose the Grand Avenue site. That would make the arena practically on campus. Huge for us. obviously the other sites are close too so won't be too disappointed either way.
Would be even better if they built on our new land acquisition. I seem to remember someone on this site doing an overlay that showed an arena could be built on the site. However there may need to be more leg work done on the ancillary parking , re routing of traffic etc. Although who knows anything can happen.
Our new President Lovell is the kind of guy the Bucks owners would prefer to deal with. He is a smart, competitive and forward thinking guy. Much different than the Milwaukee pols. Hopefully he can leverage that to make a good deal for us. Maybe even figure out a way to have the Bucks conduct their practices at the Al (NCAA permitting of course).
Quote from: Texas Western on January 02, 2015, 10:14:01 PM
My hope is that the Bucks chose the Grand Avenue site. That would make the arena practically on campus. Huge for us. obviously the other sites are close too so won't be too disappointed either way.
Would be even better if they built on our new land acquisition. I seem to remember someone on this site doing an overlay that showed an arena could be built on the site. However there may need to be more leg work done on the ancillary parking , re routing of traffic etc. Although who knows anything can happen.
Our new President Lovell is the kind of guy the Bucks owners would prefer to deal with. He is a smart, competitive and forward thinking guy. Much different than the Milwaukee pols. Hopefully he can leverage that to make a good deal for us. Maybe even figure out a way to have the Bucks conduct their practices at the Al (NCAA permitting of course).
Yeah, the Al isn't big enough for a NBA training facility
Did the journal sentinel finally decide to give up their building?
The new arena will be just north of the BC. Edens and Lasry want public to kick in money, but if and most likely when it does not happen, they are paying for the whole thing. Thats according to my source who is close to the situation.
Quote from: forgetful on January 02, 2015, 08:15:00 PM
They can't build it anywhere else. The sale agreement forbids moving the team. If the city and owners don't agree to an arena, they can only sell it back to the NBA, who is then free to sell it to anyone else.
There is no guarantee, they would be owners then and would have to invest considerably more than the current deal to move the franchise.
The highest value for the team is simply not here in Milwaukee. If a stadium does not get under construction by the shortly coming deadline, the team is likely moving. Wether is is moved by the current owners, the NBA or a new owner is irrelevant. Does the term you cite mean the current group wants to get a deal done here? Yes, or the team would likely be gone already. I think the only real hope is that the huge disparity in the price they paid vs. the Clippers means they believe their purchase price was such a great deal that they can contribute significantly more than the figures that have been cited towards a new arena. Kind of like Jane Pettit riding in for the rescue after the City spent years screwing around talking about replacing MECCA. Even then the only way the Bradley Center got built was her amazing gift that pretty much shamed the City into building a few parking lots. While I am hopeful that something gets done, I cannot rely on a City that refuses to sell a crumbling parking structure with significant maintenance needs to one of its best corporate citizens and has already designated most of the downtown tax base for trolley TIFs. Unless the new guys think it makes sense to (mostly) privately finance an arena I see no desire or impetus for the public to intervene. Hope I am wrong.
Quote from: PandTandMand... on January 02, 2015, 09:37:17 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/06/28/losing-my-mind-over-the-milwaukee-bucks-sale/
I don't see where it says they can't move the team. It says the nba can buy it back but doesn't say anything about not moving or selling the team before that. And was that nba deadline part of the contract or something already in place? Is it the same deadline as the one that could pushed backed.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on January 03, 2015, 08:49:29 AM
I don't see where it says they can't move the team. It says the nba can buy it back but doesn't say anything about not moving or selling the team before that. And was that nba deadline part of the contract or something already in place? Is it the same deadline as the one that could pushed backed.
The provision was written into the contract by Kohl in order to prevent Edens and Lasry from moving the team. (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10930188/nba-approve-wesley-edens-marc-lasry-new-owners-milwaukee-bucks-thursday-per-source)
Quote from: ESPNIn a unique part of the sales contract, the NBA has the right to buy the Bucks back from Edens and Lasry for $575 million if a new arena isn't finalized by 2017, when the Bucks' current lease is up. This was a provision installed by Kohl to ensure the new owners would not have the option to move the team if arena funding doesn't come through.
I can't find a source, but I remember hearing that if the NBA goes through with the buy-back, Edens and Lasry cannot be bidders for the team. So they can't sell the team back then jump back into the process to take the Bucks to Seattle. Kohl is a smart enough guy that I'm sure the buyback provision will make sure either Edens and Lasry keep the team here, or they end up out in the cold.
My instincts are as follows. Current Bucks ownership won't be able to get the necessary funding/support for the new arena. The NBA exercises their rights to repurchase (paying a decent premium to ownership) with the expectation that even more money will be forthcoming from an even newer ownership team that will take the team to Seattle. Edens and Lasry have been set up as 'beards' allowing Herb Kohl to fulfill his promise that the team would never move because of him.
That's not to say that Edens/Lasry don't want a new arena or prefer to 'rent' the Bucks. It's just saying that they have a solid out if it comes to that. They'll get paid for their efforts.
I'm still of the opinion that a new arena for Milwaukee is a bad idea. I'd personally let the Bucks move and work like hell to get an NHL franchise. Just my 2 cents. Not really interested in the argument. And by the way, I fully supported the construction of Miller Park so it's not that I'm anti sports facility.
Quote from: jsglow on January 03, 2015, 09:03:59 AM
I'm still of the opinion that a new arena for Milwaukee is a bad idea. I'd personally let the Bucks move and work like hell to get an NHL franchise. Just my 2 cents. Not really interested in the argument. And by the way, I fully supported the construction of Miller Park so it's not that I'm anti sports facility.
If we were ever going to get a NHL team, it would have happened when Jane Pettit built the Bradley Center. If that couldn't lure one in, I don't see any way we would be able to get one here now. I'd love to have one, but just don't think it's a remotely realistic hope.
If Milwaukee is to stay a 2-sports team town, they have to keep the Bucks. It's the only option. And unlike Seattle, if we lose the Bucks, the NBA won't be fighting and clawing to get a franchise back here.
And not trying to argue it, just trying to be realistic.
I don't see the NHL coming to Milwaukee with the Black Hawks to the south and the Wild in Minnesota. I don't see enough hockey fans in southeast Wisconsin to support it,
Quote from: mu03eng on January 02, 2015, 03:38:00 PM
I think MU does, in lieu of some sort of rental agreement or some modification thereof said agreement. Depending on the location chosen, they may be donating the land as their contribution because some of the $500 mil price tag is land acquisition.
Perhaps. But MU better do a much better job than DePaul who either just got absolutely hosed in Chicago or at a minimum did a horrible job explaining what they got in return for their investment. Thank goodness John Ferraro is the Trustee Chairman these days. Top notch financial guy from Ernst & Young.
Quote from: jsglow on January 03, 2015, 09:15:36 AM
Perhaps. But MU better do a much better job than DePaul who either just got absolutely hosed in Chicago or at a minimum did a horrible job explaining what they got in return for their investment. Thank goodness John Ferraro is the Trustee Chairman these days. Top notch financial guy from Ernst & Young.
Any MU investment you would think would require some sort of revenue split with MU, making the financing of any new facility from the private sector even more dicey. Again, hope I am wrong. I just don't see this happening without significant public support, and I see no leadership or demand for this to happen.
Quote from: brewcity77 on January 03, 2015, 09:10:45 AM
If we were ever going to get a NHL team, it would have happened when Jane Pettit built the Bradley Center. If that couldn't lure one in, I don't see any way we would be able to get one here now. I'd love to have one, but just don't think it's a remotely realistic hope.
If Milwaukee is to stay a 2-sports team town, they have to keep the Bucks. It's the only option. And unlike Seattle, if we lose the Bucks, the NBA won't be fighting and clawing to get a franchise back here.
And not trying to argue it, just trying to be realistic.
Perhaps. But times are different. Old man Wirtz is dead. He was the one who reportedly single-handedly blocked the deal along with the crazy price that was being suggested at the time. Heck, the Blackhawks even televise home games nowadays! Totally agree with you that if the NBA departs we won't get another team.
Quote from: connie on January 03, 2015, 09:20:01 AM
Any MU investment you would think would require some sort of revenue split with MU, making the financing of any new facility from the private sector even more dicey. Again, hope I am wrong. I just don't see this happening without significant public support, and I see no leadership or demand for this to happen.
+1
If MU ponies up money for the new arena, then they own part of it, and get a percentage (depending on their ownership) of
ALL events at this arena.
The better question is whether an investment in a new arena in Milwaukee is a good idea.
Quote from: jsglow on January 03, 2015, 09:21:23 AM
Perhaps. But times are different. Old man Wirtz is dead. He was the one who reportedly single-handedly blocked the deal along with the crazy price that was being suggested at the time. Heck, the Blackhawks even televise home games nowadays! Totally agree with you that if the NBA departs we won't get another team.
The league has to approve a franchise moving to Milwaukee. If the blackhawks don't want it, the league will not approve it. End of story.
Quote from: connie on January 03, 2015, 09:20:01 AM
Any MU investment you would think would require some sort of revenue split with MU, making the financing of any new facility from the private sector even more dicey. Again, hope I am wrong. I just don't see this happening without significant public support, and I see no leadership or demand for this to happen.
I think you're right. If MU kicks in $100MM then it needs to own 20% of the $500MM facility meaning that when The Who do their 60th anniversary tour we'll be getting a check from the promoter. I just do see it. At a very minimum, MU will need to demonstrate that the net present value of the check they write is lower than the net present value of the free rent over the next 20 years. Doesn't seem possible.
I will be watching Dr. Lovell very carefully. He's definitely into 'community building'. I'm trusting that his only interest is the betterment of Marquette. Support for Milwaukee is fine but there are certainly limits.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 03, 2015, 09:25:30 AM
The league has to approve a franchise moving to Milwaukee. If the blackhawks don't want it, the league will not approve it. End of story.
Of course Walt. All I'm saying is that what the Blackhawks wanted in 1987 and what they might want now is often 180 degrees different. (For those that don't know the story, old man Bill Wirtz died in 2007. The next generation runs the organization totally different.)
Quote from: jsglow on January 03, 2015, 09:31:11 AM
Of course Walt. All I'm saying is that what the Blackhawks wanted in 1987 and what they might want now is often 180 degrees different. (For those that don't know the story, old man Bill Wirtz died in 2007. The next generation runs the organization totally different.)
Yes lots of things have changed under Rocky, but that does not include wanting another NHL franchise 90 miles away.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 03, 2015, 09:34:52 AM
Yes lots of things have changed under Rocky, but that does not include wanting another NHL franchise 90 miles away.
Never understood why they wouldn't. Is it a bad thing to have a natural geographic rival? Do the Blackhawks rely on fans from Milwaukee to fill the stands? Are all Blackhawks games televised in Milwaukee like they are in Chicago?
We all know how much it hurts the Pack to have the Bears, and vice versa.
Quote from: PandTandMand... on January 03, 2015, 12:13:22 AM
Yeah, the Al isn't big enough for a NBA training facility
Huh? The timberwolves don't even have a training facility and you think the Al isn't "big" enough for the bucks? Come on.
Quote from: jsglow on January 03, 2015, 09:28:48 AM
I think you're right. If MU kicks in $100MM then it needs to own 20% of the $500MM facility meaning that when The Who do their 60th anniversary tour we'll be getting a check from the promoter. I just do see it. At a very minimum, MU will need to demonstrate that the net present value of the check they write is lower than the net present value of the free rent over the next 20 years. Doesn't seem possible.
I will be watching Dr. Lovell very carefully. He's definitely into 'community building'. I'm trusting that his only interest is the betterment of Marquette. Support for Milwaukee is fine but there are certainly limits.
Does that mean they are also on the hook for some of the losses annually, too?
To my knowledge, the Bradley Center has never been profitable in it's existence (perhaps in a few years they broke even). It has been a while, but when I used to work with Skiles and Costello and those guys, that was the case. Feel free to correct me if someone has more updated information.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2015, 10:07:59 AM
Does that mean they are also on the hook for some of the losses annually, too?
To my knowledge, the Bradley Center has never been profitable in it's existence (perhaps in a few years they broke even). It has been a while, but when I used to work with Skiles and Costello and those guys, that was the case. Feel free to correct me if someone has more updated information.
I believe you are correct, but it is hard (for me) to separate out the numbers when they have over 35m of deferred maintenance.
anyone heard what the capacity might be? I hope it goes smaller. Brooklyn is only 17,700
Quote from: marqfan22 on January 03, 2015, 03:07:09 PM
anyone heard what the capacity might be? I hope it goes smaller. Brooklyn is only 17,700
There was an interview with one of the owners a few weeks ago saying they're thinking of 16,500.
that would be a perfect size for MU. create more demand for big games and near/full capacity for many games
The the Arena will get built: because Kohl is putting in $100Mil, The owners It was said are now up to $150 mil. They have added a few more Minority investors that are developers and also some local investors. You have MU making some type of $$ commitmant. Lets call it $25 Mil. and naming rights which would run $50 mil as a guess. So right off the bat you have $325 of the $450 needed without any public financing. That is just to close to get the city and the owners to walk away.
That said the reason it will get done is because these guys are $$$$ for a reason. Since they purchased the Bucks another franchise sold for 2 billion and they purchased for $550. IE that got a good deal and the NBA only has to buy it back for $575 so with all the time and effort in buying and looking for a new site ETC they would not make any money on the deal at all. If the NBA buys it back the price in Seattle would be $1.5 bil is my guess.
But the biggest reason is becasue the the NBA TV deal for 2016-17 goes from 31 million per team (current deal) to 86 million per year for 9 years. Do you think the owners are going to walk away from 86 million in TV Revenue for nothing over 50 or 100 mil needed to get it done. if they have to add more private investment they will. and this does not even go into the Ego of owning a Pro sport franchise with is like owning a yacht.
Quote from: kmwtrucks on January 04, 2015, 03:56:19 PM
The the Arena will get built: because Kohl is putting in $100Mil, The owners It was said are now up to $150 mil. They have added a few more Minority investors that are developers and also some local investors. You have MU making some type of $$ commitmant. Lets call it $25 Mil. and naming rights which would run $50 mil as a guess. So right off the bat you have $325 of the $450 needed without any public financing. That is just to close to get the city and the owners to walk away.
That said the reason it will get done is because these guys are $$$$ for a reason. Since they purchased the Bucks another franchise sold for 2 billion and they purchased for $550. IE that got a good deal and the NBA only has to buy it back for $575 so with all the time and effort in buying and looking for a new site ETC they would not make any money on the deal at all. If the NBA buys it back the price in Seattle would be $1.5 bil is my guess.
But the biggest reason is becasue the the NBA TV deal for 2016-17 goes from 31 million per team (current deal) to 86 million per year for 9 years. Do you think the owners are going to walk away from 86 million in TV Revenue for nothing over 50 or 100 mil needed to get it done. if they have to add more private investment they will. and this does not even go into the Ego of owning a Pro sport franchise with is like owning a yacht.
Ding! If they have to pony in $200MM they will still see that back fairly quickly. They don't want to lose this asset.
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 03, 2015, 09:34:52 AM
Yes lots of things have changed under Rocky, but that does not include wanting another NHL franchise 90 miles away.
Regardless of what Rocky wants, there are many, many cities out there with better potential for an NHL franchise than Milwaukee.
The league is very interested in Vegas. A second franchise in the Toronto area would be a cash cow. The Portland (Ore.) junior team does better attendance than the Admirals. Seattle, Quebec City and Kansas City also are more attractive options for a variety of reasons.
Sorry, Milwaukee.
The naming rights of the new arena will be enhanced by our involvement. A large percentage of our games are nationally televised and almost all televised in some respect .
the Atlanta hawks are up for sale so it will be interesting to see what $$ amounts people would bid for them? That might be a good indicator of where the Bucks value should be. I'm thinking atlanta comes in just over 1 billion.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 04, 2015, 04:06:03 PM
Regardless of what Rocky wants, there are many, many cities out there with better potential for an NHL franchise than Milwaukee.
The league is very interested in Vegas. A second franchise in the Toronto area would be a cash cow. The Portland (Ore.) junior team does better attendance than the Admirals. Seattle, Quebec City and Kansas City also are more attractive options for a variety of reasons.
Sorry, Milwaukee.
Completely agree
I agree, however the attendance of the Admirals is not indicative of attendance of a future NHL team. Just as the Beloit Snappers are not indicative of attendance of a MLB in Milwaukee. Same sport, cometely different animal.
The stadium is going to happen, too much cash has been "pledged" behind the scenes for it not to happen. The only public financing is going to be the jock tax which makes far too much sense not to do. From what I'm hearing MU will be involved in some fashion but it will not be explicitly stated in anyway.
I've been told by a couple of different people there are multiple sites in play and that's what is holding everything up as the land acquisition and potential remediation costs play a factor in the final price tag. I believe the Journal location is still the prime candidate and the fact that the paper has gone pretty silent on the whole thing leads me to believe a deal is very close.
Quote from: We R Final Four on January 05, 2015, 07:01:30 AM
I agree, however the attendance of the Admirals is not indicative of attendance of a future NHL team. Just as the Beloit Snappers are not indicative of attendance of a MLB in Milwaukee. Same sport, cometely different animal.
Well, they are completely different cities...
USC and UCLA have always averaged large collegiate crowds in the Los Angeles-area, whereas the Raiders and Rams (professional teams) couldn't draw squat - despite using the same venues. In my limited experience with hockey and Milwaukee, the city just isn't a hockey town. Football and basketball are the draws in the winter.
Ironically enough, it looks like the Rams are headed back to LA in the near future.
Quote from: mu03eng on January 05, 2015, 08:01:28 AM
The only public financing is going to be the jock tax which makes far too much sense not to do.
The jock tax is some next level three card monty-ing of the taxpayers. No we're not using public funds, were just taxing those rich athletes (pay no attention to the fact that these taxes were already being paid and otherwise would contribute to the general state income tax receipts if not intercepted and given as favor to the stadium district).
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 08:28:03 AM
The jock tax is some next level three card monty-ing of the taxpayers. No we're not using public funds, were just taxing those rich athletes (pay no attention to the fact that these taxes were already being paid and otherwise would contribute to the general state income tax receipts if not intercepted and given as favor to the stadium district).
Right. But a good chunk of that goes away if the Bucks leave. So Wisconsin will be out either way.
Quote from: GoldenWarrior11 on January 05, 2015, 08:04:51 AM
Well, they are completely different cities...
USC and UCLA have always averaged large collegiate crowds in the Los Angeles-area, whereas the Raiders and Rams (professional teams) couldn't draw squat - despite using the same venues. In my limited experience with hockey and Milwaukee, the city just isn't a hockey town. Football and basketball are the draws in the winter.
Ironically enough, it looks like the Rams are headed back to LA in the near future.
I'm not sure Milwaukee is enough of a hockey town to support an NHL team, but using the Admirals attendance to draw that conclusion isn't a smoking gun.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 05, 2015, 08:28:59 AM
Right. But a good chunk of that goes away if the Bucks leave. So Wisconsin will be out either way.
I actually *want* to do some form of public financing for the stadium. I'd be happy with a nominal sales tax (i.e. the Miller Part tax), increases on hotel rooms and rental car taxes, and would even listen to other proposals. As long as we identify the new tax and apply it 100% exclusively to the stadium construction and upkeep, I'm listening.
I'm less enthused by misleading people with "jock" taxes and TIF districts and like.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on January 03, 2015, 09:57:54 AM
Huh? The timberwolves don't even have a training facility and you think the Al isn't "big" enough for the bucks? Come on.
Come on? You use the Timberwolves as an example?
Big boys have nice facilities way bigger than the Al, and they don't share them with a bunch of collegiate sports.
Typical Milwaukee thinking.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-bulls-west-side-practice-facility-20140912-story.html
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 08:31:42 AM
I actually *want* to do some form of public financing for the stadium. I'd be happy with a nominal sales tax (i.e. the Miller Part tax), increases on hotel rooms and rental car taxes, and would even listen to other proposals. As long as we identify the new tax and apply it 100% exclusively to the stadium construction and upkeep, I'm listening.
I'm less enthused by misleading people with "jock" taxes and TIF districts and like.
Who's misleading anyone? Has anyone said that the jock taxes are free to the state? Or TIF districts? (Which are used all the time to spur economic development by the way.)
Quote from: PandTandMand... on January 05, 2015, 08:32:58 AM
Come on? You use the Timberwolves as an example?
Big boys have nice facilities way bigger than the Al, and they don't share them with a bunch of collegiate sports.
Typical Milwaukee thinking.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-bulls-west-side-practice-facility-20140912-story.html
Exactly. If the Bucks are going to do this, they are going to do it right. They aren't training at the Al.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 05, 2015, 08:36:24 AM
Who's misleading anyone? Has anyone said that the jock taxes are free to the state? Or TIF districts? (Which are used all the time to spur economic development by the way.)
They are sold as ways to public finance projects without cost to the public. People see "oh no new taxes to me, hooray," and don't bother to realize that "well it costs tax money that would offset my overall burden and possibly would serve to lower the deficit and decrease the likelihood of future tax increases on me."
The "Jock" Tax and TIF districts would exist if they weren't inherently misleading to people.
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 08:47:22 AM
They are sold as ways to public finance projects without cost to the public. People see "oh no new taxes to me, hooray," and don't bother to realize that "well it costs tax money that would offset my overall burden and possibly would serve to lower the deficit and decrease the likelihood of future tax increases on me."
The "Jock" Tax and TIF districts would exist if they weren't inherently misleading to people.
Well, I would argue that they aren't misleading to the people. People are just idiots.
I have argued all along that the economic benefits of a new arena will be heavily localized to near where the arena is built. There will not be an overall benefit to the state. That being said, I don't have a problem with the state subsidizing the building of a new arena. I think it is perfectly appropriate to do so.
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 08:47:22 AM
They are sold as ways to public finance projects without cost to the public. People see "oh no new taxes to me, hooray," and don't bother to realize that "well it costs tax money that would offset my overall burden and possibly would serve to lower the deficit and decrease the likelihood of future tax increases on me."
The "Jock" Tax and TIF districts would exist if they weren't inherently misleading to people.
OK, so you are fine with it just as long as the "people" understand what it is? Seems a weird threshold to meet to me.
Point is, it's tax revenue that goes away if the team moves and the team will move if a new stadium isn't built. So either way it's "dead revenue" as far as the tax payers are concerned so why not use it to keep a team in town and at least receive marginal benefits for other things a new stadium brings.
Quote from: mu03eng on January 05, 2015, 08:58:46 AM
OK, so you are fine with it just as long as the "people" understand what it is? Seems a weird threshold to meet to me.
Point is, it's tax revenue that goes away if the team moves and the team will move if a new stadium isn't built. So either way it's "dead revenue" as far as the tax payers are concerned so why not use it to keep a team in town and at least receive marginal benefits for other things a new stadium brings.
Very well said. The only thing you left out is that the "Jock Tax" revenue goes back into the general coffers once the State pays off their stadium debt/bond. And with the NBA TV revenue set to nearly triple, the State will actually see an increase in "Jock Tax" revenue above the current annual figure of $10.7 million.
Quote from: Lazars Headband on January 05, 2015, 09:05:13 AM
Very well said. The only thing you left out is that the "Jock Tax" revenue goes back into the general coffers once the State pays off their stadium debt/bond. And with the NBA TV revenue set to nearly triple, the State will actually see an increase in "Jock Tax" revenue above the current annual figure of $10.7 million.
You are correct.
For those that don't know the way the jock tax works is this:
-State essentially takes out a loan sufficient to fund the public portion of the finance
-The amount of financing is theoretically limited to the annual revenue generated by the "jock tax"
-The jock tax is taking all revenue generated by taxing income from, in this case, the NBA players who play in Milwaukee in a given year. Keep in mind the players are only taxed on income generated in state, so the Bucks players are taxed for home games, but away games are taxed in the state played in. Conversely, players from competitors pay taxes on income generated while playing in Milwaukee. Think of it as taxing per game check.
-The revenue generated from this "tax" is then used to pay the principal and interest on the "loan" the state took out for the financing.
-Once the financing is paid off the revenue from the jock tax can be rerouted to the general coffers (I don't count on this typically that's why I left that out ;D)
Maybe Milwaukee should just buy the Bucks instead...
https://sports.vice.com/article/the-radical-case-for-cities-buying-sports-teams-not-sports-stadiums
Quote from: MUDPT on January 05, 2015, 09:29:14 AM
Maybe Milwaukee should just buy the Bucks instead...
https://sports.vice.com/article/the-radical-case-for-cities-buying-sports-teams-not-sports-stadiums
Maybe people shouldn't write about radical ideas if they are not possible. The NBA does not allow this (nor any major sports league including the NFL-Packers were grandfathered in) and the NBA would just buy back the team in 2017. There should really be some basic fact checking before acting smarter than everyone else.
So Milwaukee would pay fair value, be known as the city who decided to buy a franchise, lose it 2 years later and maybe gained $25 but lost all the TV revenue coming into the state? Sounds like a great idea? All while dragging this in court for 2 years...
Quote from: mu03eng on January 05, 2015, 08:58:46 AM
OK, so you are fine with it just as long as the "people" understand what it is? Seems a weird threshold to meet to me.
Point is, it's tax revenue that goes away if the team moves and the team will move if a new stadium isn't built. So either way it's "dead revenue" as far as the tax payers are concerned so why not use it to keep a team in town and at least receive marginal benefits for other things a new stadium brings.
I guess I was inefficient in explaining my issues with TIF districts and the jock tax, only one of which are the fact that they are deceptive.
Why does Northwestern Mutual get a TIF district and a "Financier" tax to pay for its new building? Why doesn't GE Healtchare get a TIF district and an "MRI" tax to pay for improvements to its facilities? Both companies have a huge positive economic impact on the city, state, and region. Both would LOVE it if they could capture all of the tax revenue generated by their business activity and use it to exclusively better their circumstances.
I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that we pay taxes to improve the society generally. The Jock Tax and TIF districts are thinly-veiled corruption for well-connected developers.
Somebody noted that the benefit of the stadium is likely to be mostly localized around the area it is built, plus some spillover for people who can access the facility as fans (e.g. the 5-county area). Why spread the tax burden to people in Vilas County who may or may not even know that there is a professional basketball team in Milwaukee? The Miller Park sales tax worked and built a very nice stadium. The only reason that's not on the table is because it cost politicians their jobs and politicians number 1 priority is keeping their jobs.
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
I guess I was inefficient in explaining my issues with TIF districts and the jock tax, only one of which are the fact that they are deceptive.
Why does Northwestern Mutual get a TIF district and a "Financier" tax to pay for its new building? Why doesn't GE Healtchare get a TIF district and an "MRI" tax to pay for improvements to its facilities? Both companies have a huge positive economic impact on the city, state, and region. Both would LOVE it if they could capture all of the tax revenue generated by their business activity and use it to exclusively better their circumstances.
I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that we pay taxes to improve the society generally. The Jock Tax and TIF districts are thinly-veiled corruption for well-connected developers.
Somebody noted that the benefit of the stadium is likely to be mostly localized around the area it is built, plus some spillover for people who can access the facility as fans (e.g. the 5-county area). Why spread the tax burden to people in Vilas County who may or may not even know that there is a professional basketball team in Milwaukee? The Miller Park sales tax worked and built a very nice stadium. The only reason that's not on the table is because it cost politicians their jobs and politicians number 1 priority is keeping their jobs.
I agree with you.
I'm not big on slippery slope style arguments, but if we are going to simply give back the tax revenue that a business makes, where do we stop with that?
I mean, maybe it's actually a good idea. Build Google a world class facility and don't charge them for it? Could a city/state really create opportunities by attracting such business partners with free facilities? It doesn't seem like it would work, but somebody with an econ degree would have to help me out.
Quote from: Canned Goods n Ammo on January 05, 2015, 10:19:00 AM
I agree with you.
I'm not big on slippery slope style arguments, but if we are going to simply give back the tax revenue that a business makes, where do we stop with that?
I mean, maybe it's actually a good idea. Build Google a world class facility and don't charge them for it? Could a city/state really create opportunities by attracting such business partners with free facilities? It doesn't seem like it would work, but somebody with an econ degree would have to help me out.
I guess what I said does boil down to a slippery slope argument, but it was more intended to point out the intellectual incongruity behind financing the stadium with one set of preferential tax treatment but not other business concerns with similarly large economic value to the community.
Secondly, that's the argument: Attract business X by spending Y on a stadium. Hope the impact of business X being around creates tax revenue that's greater than Y. The Deadspin Office of Stadium Opposition beats the drum that never works out in favor for the community building the stadium.
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 10:32:47 AM
I guess what I said does boil down to a slippery slope argument, but it was more intended to point out the intellectual incongruity behind financing the stadium with one set of preferential tax treatment but not other business concerns with similarly large economic value to the community.
Secondly, that's the argument: Attract business X by spending Y on a stadium. Hope the impact of business X being around creates tax revenue that's greater than Y. The Deadspin Office of Stadium Opposition beats the drum that never works out in favor for the community building the stadium.
If we examine how much revenue the BC has actually created, I think we can make a case that it hasn't been as much as people think.
I LOVE the idea of a privately funded arena with some tax breaks and incentives. But, I'm not really interested in the city funding a building with the hope that it somehow produces revenue for everybody else in the city.
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 10:32:47 AM
I guess what I said does boil down to a slippery slope argument, but it was more intended to point out the intellectual incongruity behind financing the stadium with one set of preferential tax treatment but not other business concerns with similarly large economic value to the community.
Secondly, that's the argument: Attract business X by spending Y on a stadium. Hope the impact of business X being around creates tax revenue that's greater than Y. The Deadspin Office of Stadium Opposition beats the drum that never works out in favor for the community building the stadium.
As I said earlier, the State of Wisconsin could simply decide that it wants to keep the NBA around. To me, that is justification enough for why the Bucks get preferential treatment versus other businesses with similar economic value to the community.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 05, 2015, 10:48:42 AM
As I said earlier, the State of Wisconsin could simply decide that it wants to keep the NBA around. To me, that is justification enough for why the Bucks get preferential treatment versus other businesses with similar economic value to the community.
I'm actually okay with that, but I guess we need to define "preferential treatment" and how much it actually costs.
Quote from: Canned Goods n Ammo on January 05, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
I'm actually okay with that, but I guess we need to define "preferential treatment" and how much it actually costs.
Yep. Agreed. I just think when we use straight, objective measurements to determine the economic benefit of professional sports, we engage in a lot of poor economics. But sports are more than that. They are also subjective and emotional, and lend something to the community that can't always be measured.
Quote from: jficke13 on January 05, 2015, 10:09:45 AM
I guess I was inefficient in explaining my issues with TIF districts and the jock tax, only one of which are the fact that they are deceptive.
Why does Northwestern Mutual get a TIF district and a "Financier" tax to pay for its new building? Why doesn't GE Healtchare get a TIF district and an "MRI" tax to pay for improvements to its facilities? Both companies have a huge positive economic impact on the city, state, and region. Both would LOVE it if they could capture all of the tax revenue generated by their business activity and use it to exclusively better their circumstances.
I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that we pay taxes to improve the society generally. The Jock Tax and TIF districts are thinly-veiled corruption for well-connected developers.
Somebody noted that the benefit of the stadium is likely to be mostly localized around the area it is built, plus some spillover for people who can access the facility as fans (e.g. the 5-county area). Why spread the tax burden to people in Vilas County who may or may not even know that there is a professional basketball team in Milwaukee? The Miller Park sales tax worked and built a very nice stadium. The only reason that's not on the table is because it cost politicians their jobs and politicians number 1 priority is keeping their jobs.
Right, but you are completely ignoring the fact that its dead money either way. And the jock tax and a TIF district should be treated differently....moving a team is a lot easier than moving a fortune 500 company.
The jock tax is dead money if a stadium isn't built, there is no scenario where a new stadium is not built and the Bucks are still here in 2019. So we either use that dead money to retain the possibility of future revenue for the jock tax or we have to come up with new revenue when the Bucks leave. Both scenarios change the revenue picture for the next 10 years, one provides a long term positive, one does not.
And your spread the tax burden over the state is a false argument for the jock tax. The revenue is generated locally(Milwaukee) so why should Vilas county get to use the revenue for a team they may or may not be aware of?
1. Market forces are at work. Seattle and St. Louis would kill for a team. They'd probably foot the entire bill for a $600 million stadium.
2. The State if WI and Milwaukee are getting a great deal. They only have to spend one quarter to one third of what other cities would willingly pay.
3. I'm not a huge believer in the ancillary economic benefit of sports teams. Downtown restaurants would suffer but that's about it. It's more of a quality of life thing.
Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what ya got 'til it's gone, aina?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on January 05, 2015, 08:40:24 AM
Exactly. If the Bucks are going to do this, they are going to do it right. They aren't training at the Al.
But that doesn't mean they won't share a space with Marquette
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 05, 2015, 11:49:27 AM
But that doesn't mean they won't share a space with Marquette
Now why would MU want to move out of The Al?
Quote from: PandTandMand... on January 05, 2015, 11:58:20 AM
Now why would MU want to move out of The Al?
Not saying they would. But I could see mutual benefits to both parties if they worked together on some things.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 05, 2015, 12:09:15 PM
Not saying they would. But I could see mutual benefits to both parties if they worked together on some things.
Outside of sharing the arena, I don't see much of a benefit for either parties working together.
MUBB gets plenty of NBA exposure from the visiting teams anyway at The Al.
Albeit most undesirable, I believe it is destined for the vacant land north of the BC. Unless the City sees some way to create new space for its Entertainment District (Panther Arena, Milw Theater and the Exposition Center) nothing else is imminent. Tom Barrett needs to envision a two car garage for his street cars in the midst of the district.
Other sites like the Grand Avenue and even the Journal building have the hopes of rejuvenating a dull area. This could really be a win for downtown but I fear the City will take the path of least resistance.
Back in 1965, the Milwaukee Braves moved to Atlanta. Anyone over the age of 55 remembers the heartbreaking implication that had for Milwaukee and the community at large. The region fell in love with the Braves and the Braves rewarded Milwaukee with a World Series in 1957. But fans were fickle and the team did not sustain its championship success after 1960 and attendance was inadequate to make up for the huge radio and television market that existed at that time in Atlanta.
Milwaukee was very fortunate to have Bud Selig work to re-establish baseball in Milwaukee in 1971. That's a once-in-a-lifetime "reset" that's unlikely to happen here in a basketball sense without a new arena.
Without the Brewers, Milwaukee would have been a backwater AAA and maybe a AA city when it comes to image (and, yes, cheeseheads, image matters in deciding where one intends to locate factors of production). Without the Bucks, the city probably is AAA rather than major league. As much as I HATE the idea of a new arena, it's a necessity if Milwaukee intends to be a major league city. Look no further than Nashville, which was barely a AA city 25 years ago. It's built a major league arena and attracted a successful NHL franchise. The city built an NFL football stadium, which attracted the Titans. They're even building a new, high-quality minor league baseball park.
Also, pay close attention to what Nashville did with the lower Broadway neighborhood, which is now one of the hottest entertainment districts in the south. Milwaukee has done NOTHING comparable to most of this (apart from Miller Park, which it did kicking and screaming).
With the Bucks gone, Milwaukee's quality of life will not be as strong. Corporations like NML, Baird and a number of money managers who make Milwaukee their corporate headquarters will have moderately greater amounts of difficulty recruting top talent, especially when compared to cities that have the NBA, MLB and high-quality entertainment.
Yes, I think the idea of replacing a very nice, gifted 25 year old arena is both bizzare and mistaken priorities. But I also think Milwaukee and Wisconsin has too much working against it in the "real" economic world to allow an asset like the Bucks to get away.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on January 05, 2015, 12:29:13 PM
Albeit most undesirable, I believe it is destined for the vacant land north of the BC. Unless the City sees some way to create new space for its Entertainment District (Panther Arena, Milw Theater and the Exposition Center) nothing else is imminent. Tom Barrett needs to envision a two car garage for his street cars in the midst of the district.
Other sites like the Grand Avenue and even the Journal building have the hopes of rejuvenating a dull area. This could really be a win for downtown but I fear the City will take the path of least resistance.
Putting the new arena in Grand Ave would be great for Wisconsin Ave, but then you'd have a giant hole in the city where there is nothing. That's redistribution, not growth, we all need to keep that in mind.
If you want actual growth, you have to lay out a long term plan on how it's all going to work. Building a new arena and getting 5 new restaurants is not growth. We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that.
Quote from: WarhawkWarrior on January 05, 2015, 12:29:13 PM
Albeit most undesirable, I believe it is destined for the vacant land north of the BC. Unless the City sees some way to create new space for its Entertainment District (Panther Arena, Milw Theater and the Exposition Center) nothing else is imminent. Tom Barrett needs to envision a two car garage for his street cars in the midst of the district.
Other sites like the Grand Avenue and even the Journal building have the hopes of rejuvenating a dull area. This could really be a win for downtown but I fear the City will take the path of least resistance.
The city doesn't necessarily have a say in this. The city wants them to use the Park East corridor but for reasons discussed before that's a very expensive proposition. If they can secure the Journal building the dominoes like Frank Gimbel will fall and there will be a new stadium in that area. If that doesn't happen I think it more likely to be Grand Ave than Park East.
Quote from: Canned Goods n Ammo on January 05, 2015, 12:50:03 PM
Putting the new arena in Grand Ave would be great for Wisconsin Ave, but then you'd have a giant hole in the city where there is nothing. That's redistribution, not growth, we all need to keep that in mind.
If you want actual growth, you have to lay out a long term plan on how it's all going to work. Building a new arena and getting 5 new restaurants is not growth. We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that.
My interest is strictly Marquette. I think what is best for us is Grand Avenue. Makes it practically on campus. For as long as I can remember the guys running Milwaukee have had no vision ( biggest example the lakefront) . Based in personal experience, I believe Lovell is the kind of guy that the new bucks owners would prefer to deal with.