MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: reinko on April 17, 2014, 07:00:17 AM
-
Peeps thoughts?
-
I don’t know how you interpret the sale as anything but positive for Milwaukee and the Bucks. A condition of sale is that they do not move the team. Herbie is putting up 100 mil and the new owners are putting up 100 mil for a new arena. That will be enough momentum to get the financing in place to get it done. A new arena should revitalize down town and at least in the short term generate enthusiasm for the Bucks. Marquette playing in a new arena wouldn’t suck either.
What we don’t know is what kind of owners they will be, but in this case change is probably good. At least it will give the team a new direction because the direction they are going in now isn’t the right one.
-
I tried to come yesterday and say this...
The Bucks are staying in Milwaukee until at least 2017, and the new arena has 200m worth of funding.
Also came to drop an, "I TOLD YOU SO" to those that thought the Bucks were going out of town.
-
A condition of sale is that they do not move the team. Herbie is putting up 100 mil and the new owners are putting up 100 mil for a new arena.
That's all well and good, but a new stadium is estimated to cost $500 million. I am not sure the taxpayers are all that willing to pony up the rest. What happens then?
-
I'm curious as to what the specific contractual language is, in terms of "staying in Milwaukee." I have to assume it is contingent on getting a new arena, which is still not a given. $200 million is nice for starters but the estimated cost is something like $500 million. Considering the stink that was thrown over Miller Park where does the rest of that come from? As an aside, Miller Park seats 40,000+ and has a retractable roof. It was finished in 2001 and cost $400 million. How does a +/- 20,000 seat arena cost $100 million more? I get inflation but come on.
-
That's all well and good, but a new stadium is estimated to cost $500 million. I am not sure the taxpayers are all that willing to pony up the rest. What happens then?
In reality the cost will probably be closer to 600 to 700 mil.There will be some additional corporate dollars donated. There is no way it gets done with at least some public financing. The case for public financing is easier to sell if the team owners are already donating 1/3 of the cost. The Bucks will play 41 dates there, the building will be used for other events that will benefit the city.
-
In reality the cost will probably be closer to 600 to 700 mil.There will be some additional corporate dollars donated. There is no way it gets done with at least some public financing. The case for public financing is easier to sell if the team owners are already donating 1/3 of the cost. The Bucks will play 41 dates there, the building will be used for other events that will benefit the city.
What "other events" would be coming to the new stadium that can't be held in the BC?
-
For the record I live in Milwaukee and would fully support a continuation of the tax for Miller Park to support this new arena. I believe having the Bucks is great for the downtown restaurants and shops and many of them would shut down without them. Downtown would also become less of a destination.
I do wonder how this will impact Marquette. The BMO is still a decent college arena. If it isn't torn down we could easily stay there or go to the new arena (supposed to be one block north of BMO). We might even be better served if we become the single most important tenant of the BMO. However, I don't see Milwaukee being able to support two 20,000 seat arenas in the long term.
-
I'm curious as to what the specific contractual language is, in terms of "staying in Milwaukee." I have to assume it is contingent on getting a new arena, which is still not a given. $200 million is nice for starters but the estimated cost is something like $500 million. Considering the stink that was thrown over Miller Park where does the rest of that come from? As an aside, Miller Park seats 40,000+ and has a retractable roof. It was finished in 2001 and cost $400 million. How does a +/- 20,000 seat arena cost $100 million more? I get inflation but come on.
Miller Park is a positive sell for public financing. It has been a huge success for the city and the team and they will use that as an example of what can happen with a new facility.
-
What happens then?
Thunder
-
The Bucks were sold to Mark Lasry (founder of the hedge fund firm Avenue Capital and former employer of Chelsea Clinton) and Wes Edens (Founder of Fortress Capital and one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party).
They paid $550 million and agreed to not move the team and kick in $100 million for a new stadium. Kohl also agreed to kick in $100 million as well. They now need $300 million for a new stadium.
Question, isn't $200 million enough to Gut the Bradley Center and redo that?
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/goldeneagles.html
Marquette could get a real boost from new arena
By Michael Hunt of the Journal Sentinel
April 16, 2014
The proposed downtown multipurpose arena, which got a $200 million jumpstart Wednesday, could really help the Golden Eagles in terms of recruiting, BMO Harris Bradley Center officials say.
So far, Marquette has remained behind the scenes in the arena discussion. The school has chosen to keep a low profile in what has been a politically uneven situation. But if the arena gets built, the school will continue to be a partner with the Bucks in sharing the building.
The Golden Eagles have the distinction right now of playing in an NBA arena, but other schools in the Big East have advantages with better home facilities.
Added ...........
Above Hunt wrote ....
The Golden Eagles have the distinction right now of playing in an NBA arena, but other schools in the Big East have advantages with better home facilities.
I think this is badly worded and he means the Bradley Center versus other NBA arenas that BE teams play in. I don't think he means other BE teams have a better facilities than The AL.
Is this a correct interpretation?
-
What "other events" would be coming to the new stadium that can't be held in the BC?
Concerts for one. In recent years, some concerts have passed by Milwaukee because they can't guarantee the money. The concerts require a certain amount up front guaranteed, if the building can't recoup that money because of how it is set up, then the concerts aren't coming there. A new arena would cause a lot of other development in the downtown area and attract other events and conventions. Look at Indianapolis as an example.
-
I got that feeling as well. Hunt just worded it poorly. ::)
The question is, do they keep the location for the facility or do they find an entirely NEW spot for the arena? I would sincerely hope the arena stays as close to downtown (and campus) as possible. The students need to be able to get there with relative ease.
Finally, as a Chicago resident and Bulls fan, I desperately want the Bucks to succeed. I think the new arena and ownership could work miracles for the Bucks. Milwaukee is a basketball town, they have just been unfortunate with leadership in the past. At the bare minimum (since the Bucks pick no lower than 4th), the team is looking at adding one of: Wiggins, Embiid, Parker or Exum - all franchise corner stones.
-
I love this headline in today's JS ::)
Incoming Bucks owners could make dramtic changes
-
Peeps thoughts?
My thought? Perhaps the Senator can now afford a new sports jacket.
-
What "other events" would be coming to the new stadium that can't be held in the BC?
NCAA tourney games as well, heard something on the radio yesterday that the BMO actually did not make all the qualifications to host games and they had to make and exception this year
-
The Bucks were sold to Mark Lasry (founder of the hedge fund firm Avenue Capital and former employer of Chelsea Clinton) and Wes Edens (Founder of Fortress Capital and one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party).
Of course this would be a boon for Milwaukee - locally, nationally, and globally. Which is the exact reason it will be hard to do.
This sale is a BILION + dollar investment in Milwaukee - of which private investors are paying at least $700 million.
But do you think our state legislators will give money for Milwaukee? Come on, these are the same people who just voted on the right to secede from the US. Need I say more?
-
I love this headline in today's JS ::)
Incoming Bucks owners could make dramtic changes
Key word is COULD They just write this headline to garner attention. Nothing may happen for all we know. If anything, I'd like Hammond to be able to keep his job and do it without anyone intervening, like Kohl. Hopefully, the new owners have an idea of how to run a team. We shall see .......
-
Of course this would be a boon for Milwaukee - locally, nationally, and globally. Which is the exact reason it will be hard to do.
This sale is a BILION + dollar investment in Milwaukee - of which private investors are paying at least $700 million.
But do you think our state legislators will give money for Milwaukee? Come on, these are the same people who just voted on the right to secede from the US. Need I say more?
State legislators represent their own districts. Not a lot of love for Milwaukee for many reasons. So yes, you should say more because there is more to the story. People up in Rhinelander don't care about Milwaukee and certainly don't like to see the lion's share of the money going there. That's just the way it is. No different than many states I've lived in. They feel like they are working hard and all the money is going to the big city which they feel has just as many negatives and positives to it. Not sure they are entirely wrong.
On secession...please...what was it, one caucus that suggested it? They will vote on it in May and it will get soundly defeated. I would call it more of a protest vote because so many people are tired of the all consuming monstrosity in D.C., but nothing more than that.
Personally, I never support public assistance for sports arenas or stadiums. If the people want to put public assistance dollars toward it, the people should have the right to vote on it as a referendum. Then you can blame the people for the outcome.
-
I'd love to know what kind of language is in there in terms of how long they must hold the team before they sell it. In other words, maybe this group can't move it, but what happens if they sell it? Also would like to know what conditions are put in place where a move is still possible.
-
Key word is COULD They just write this headline to garner attention. Nothing may happen for all we know. If anything, I'd like Hammond to be able to keep his job and do it without anyone intervening, like Kohl. Hopefully, the new owners have an idea of how to run a team. We shall see .......
I just meant the spelling error in that headline
-
Is it a #donedeal?
-
That's all well and good, but a new stadium is estimated to cost $500 million. I am not sure the taxpayers are all that willing to pony up the rest. What happens then?
Wisconsinites are so god damn cheap, and penny wise and pound foolish
-
State legislators represent their own districts. Not a lot of love for Milwaukee for many reasons. So yes, you should say more because there is more to the story. People up in Rhinelander don't care about Milwaukee and certainly don't like to see the lion's share of the money going there. That's just the way it is. No different than many states I've lived in. They feel like they are working hard and all the money is going to the big city which they feel has just as many negatives and positives to it. Not sure they are entirely wrong.
I'm sure Rhinelander and the rest of central WI would be in GREAT shape economically if it wasn't for Milwaukee down there producing the lion's share of economic activity in the state. They just need to be given a chance!
Despite that fact, public funding for these things is dumb. They'd be better off building attractive office space for modern companies to relocate here than subsidizing facilities that profit about 2% of the population. You can't just look at Miller Park and say "it's brought in $X in economic activity!" You have to consider what those funds might have returned to the city/state had they been put to a different use.
-
Personally, I never support public assistance for sports arenas or stadiums. If the people want to put public assistance dollars toward it, the people should have the right to vote on it as a referendum. Then you can blame the people for the outcome.
Very reasonable argument. But while we concentrate on talking about sports arenas and stadiums, public funding for private businesses is a common practice everywhere. And it happens all of the time.
I wonder why we look at it one way with a sports team and another with private business. If they are successful, the result is the same - more jobs, more tax income, adding to the tax base, etc.
-
Very reasonable argument. But while we concentrate on talking about sports arenas and stadiums, public funding for private businesses is a common practice everywhere. And it happens all of the time.
I wonder why we look at it one way with a sports team and another with private business. If they are successful, the result is the same - more jobs, more tax income, adding to the tax base, etc.
Well said. Its no different than trying to offer tax breaks to a mining company upstate. Its public money going to a private business.
At least in this instance, its a private business that many, many Wisconsinites patronize and enjoy watching, and adds to the culture of the state.
-
Question, isn't $200 million enough to Gut the Bradley Center and redo that?
Unfortunately, I don't think it's really possible. I know this has been discussed somewhere before, but the BC's configuration would make it extremely tricky to gut and retrofit. Problems include a current configuration for hockey, fewer lower bowl seats than most NBA arenas, a very steeply graded upper bowl, and a small footprint relative to other arenas (500,000 sq ft versus an average of 750,000 sq ft). If the footprint weren't expanded, reconfiguring the seating bowl would probably only be a shorter term fix, as you'd still be stuck with small concourses and limited food/beverage areas and other amenities. At that point, it might make more sense to just build new, depending on how much it would actually cost to renovate.
I'll be curious to see what the MMAC report comes up with, later this year.
-
Well said. Its no different than trying to offer tax breaks to a mining company upstate. Its public money going to a private business.
At least in this instance, its a private business that many, many Wisconsinites patronize and enjoy watching, and adds to the culture of the state.
My biggest gripe is that you can build cheaper spaces for businesses that hire more people. What's a new software office building cost? Certainly not 500-700 million. How many people do the Bucks employ vs. a medium-large tech firm?
I get that the Bucks also bring people to bars/restaurants, but to a more limited extent, so do other companies. If they built an 'Innovation Campus' down there instead, all those upper income young professionals would likely buy food, drinks, etc at businesses around their workplace. Heck, they might even move into the condo developments and become tax paying city residents.
It's not that there's 0 stimulus, it's that they're subsidizing a very inefficient industry.
-
My biggest gripe is that you can build cheaper spaces for businesses that hire more people. What's a new software office building cost? Certainly not 500-700 million. How many people do the Bucks employ vs. a medium-large tech firm?
I get that the Bucks also bring people to bars/restaurants, but to a more limited extent, so do other companies. If they built an 'Innovation Campus' down there instead, all those upper income young professionals would likely buy food, drinks, etc at businesses around their workplace. Heck, they might even move into the condo developments and become tax paying city residents.
It's not that there's 0 stimulus, it's that they're subsidizing a very inefficient industry.
Agree, and money that people spend on Bucks games and entertainment is disposal income. If the Bucks leave, the income will be disposed of on something else.
However, there is the pride and perception of living in a big league city that goes along with having a professional sports team and a top notch facility. You could make the same argument about the arts, ballet, orchestra, but those are all things you want in a large metro area.
-
However, there is the pride and perception of living in a big league city that goes along with having a professional sports team and a top notch facility. You could make the same argument about the arts, ballet, orchestra, but those are all things you want in a large metro area.
I'd buy this more if MKE didn't have about 100 things that would improve the city ahead of the Bucks. Like a functional school system. Or road w/o potholes, or viable public transit, or...
You get the point.
-
I'd buy this more if MKE didn't have about 100 things that would improve the city ahead of the Bucks. Like a functional school system. Or road w/o potholes, or viable public transit, or...
You get the point.
Yes, but you could make a similar argument about every large city.
-
I'm sure Rhinelander and the rest of central WI would be in GREAT shape economically if it wasn't for Milwaukee down there producing the lion's share of economic activity in the state. They just need to be given a chance!
Despite that fact, public funding for these things is dumb. They'd be better off building attractive office space for modern companies to relocate here than subsidizing facilities that profit about 2% of the population. You can't just look at Miller Park and say "it's brought in $X in economic activity!" You have to consider what those funds might have returned to the city/state had they been put to a different use.
We can make that argument about many things. It is all about perspective. Yes, Milwaukee produces the lion's share of economic activity, it also produces the largest amount of dollar sucking from the state as well. It goes both ways. Some people don't get too excited paying a lot of money to the state and having it benefit only certain parts. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm saying that's how people view. Just as people get upset with federal dollars going out of their state and benefiting other states more than theirs. It's a legitimate argument, it may not be correct or one may not agree with it, but since it is their tax dollars they have the right to make that argument.
Put it up for a vote to the people.
-
Jimmy Mac has an interesting analysis here ..
http://jimmcilvaine.sportsblog.com/posts/653680/the_sale_of_the_milwaukee.html
-
Very reasonable argument. But while we concentrate on talking about sports arenas and stadiums, public funding for private businesses is a common practice everywhere. And it happens all of the time.
I wonder why we look at it one way with a sports team and another with private business. If they are successful, the result is the same - more jobs, more tax income, adding to the tax base, etc.
If I had to guess, it is because of racism
So you are ok with tax breaks for oil companies then, because more exploration, more jobs, more tax income.
The reason I think most people cringe at stadium deals vs private businesses is the nature of the business. When people see a baseball stadium used for 81 games a year, maybe 3 concerts and a few other things, it bothers them. When they see a football stadium being used for 10 Sundays a year, maybe a truck pull and a rugby tournament, at the cost of $800 million, it bothers them. Private businesses are slugging it out 365 days a year and usually involve many more full time people (jobs), plus brain power (engineers, technicians, MBAs, etc) that are good to have in large quantities in your city, state, etc. When one lives in a community and sees the local and\or state gov't having to put up $350M or whatever for a place where a bunch of guys play a game, wrong or right perception, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many when there are other ways that money could be spent. Again, wrong or right, that's the perception many people have. Then some of the guys on the team get into trouble, the team sucks, etc, etc, it doesn't help the cause. So in my view, it is not an appropriate comparison because of the very real and\or perceived differences with sports vs day-to-day business.
Let the people decide.
-
We can make that argument about many things. It is all about perspective. Yes, Milwaukee produces the lion's share of economic activity, it also produces the largest amount of dollar sucking from the state as well. It goes both ways. Some people don't get too excited paying a lot of money to the state and having it benefit only certain parts. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, I'm saying that's how people view. Just as people get upset with federal dollars going out of their state and benefiting other states more than theirs. It's a legitimate argument, it may not be correct or one may not agree with it, but since it is their tax dollars they have the right to make that argument.
Put it up for a vote to the people.
I totally agree about putting it up for a vote - not that it's very likely to happen (I don't think it'd pass). The Super TIF is looking like the most probable outcome as it lets the MMAC lobby Walker/Madison directly for the funds rather than having to ask the people of the 5 county area:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/super-tif-one-option-for-possible-arena-financing-b99245096z1-255034951.html
Again, I think this is a dumb project, but that doesn't make the argument that directing development funds to MKE is harmful correct. People in north/central WI can think whatever they want, but if they think that letting MKE dry up and die is going to help them, they are wrong. MKE, despite its myriad social problems, is the future of the state. People aren't graduating and clamoring to move to Oshkosh or Neena - we need to invest in the business engine of the state.
-
However, there is the pride and perception of living in a big league city that goes along with having a professional sports team and a top notch facility.
Milwaukee already has a professional sports team in a top notch facility.
And they are in 11th place in average attendance so far this year, vs. dead last for the Bucks.
-
If I had to guess, it is because of racism
This is also a really annoying, unnecessary thing to tack onto an otherwise well thought out and reasoned post. One of the few things more annoying than unsubstantiated claims of racism are unrelated complaints about complaints of racism. It trivializes a real issue just as much as 'playing the race card.'
-
Milwaukee already has a professional sports team in a top notch facility.
And they are in 11th place in average attendance so far this year, vs. dead last for the Bucks.
and the Bucks had the worst record in the league and Miller Park holds less than many other stadiums. I guess I don't understand your point.
-
Maybe the Bucks should play in Miller Park?
-
and the Bucks had the worst record in the league and Miller Park holds less than many other stadiums. I guess I don't understand your point.
My point is if the only reason to keep the Bucks is to have the prestige of having a major league sports team - we have it covered - by one that people actually turn out to see.
Personally, I'd rather see Milwaukee try to get an NHL team. Is it a possibility now that Bill Wirtz is dead? I think Rocky would actually think it is a great idea.
-
It's not that there's 0 stimulus, it's that they're subsidizing a very inefficient industry.
DING DING DING
It ultimately comes down to who has a big wiener game. Cities feel like their city will fall off the map if they lose a team. Just like Los Angeles and Seattle no longer exist...they fell off the map.
-
DING DING DING
It ultimately comes down to who has a big wiener game. Cities feel like their city will fall off the map if they lose a team. Just like Los Angeles and Seattle no longer exist...they fell off the map.
Yet both continually fight to get teams back to their cities. New arenas/stadiums in each city for no team!
My point is if the only reason to keep the Bucks is to have the prestige of having a major league sports team - we have it covered - by one that people actually turn out to see.
Personally, I'd rather see Milwaukee try to get an NHL team. Is it a possibility now that Bill Wirtz is dead? I think Rocky would actually think it is a great idea.
That is a terrible parallel. MKE fans will show up when the team is winning. Right now the Brewers are winning, and the Bucks aren't. If the Bucks are in first place and there is a good product on the court people will show up.
-
All arguments that depend on 'if the team gets good people will show up!' are inherently flawed. It's a sports team. Quality is volatile in every league and if the only way to make the civic investment pay off is to win championships you're advocating one hell of a risky investment. Risk is generally rewarded with the promise of higher return, but the return on successful sports teams still hasn't been overwhelming when you consider the tremendous expense these projects incur.
If you want to support this stadium you need to be able to honestly say yes to the following:
1. I'm okay with a regressive tax that will force those LEAST likely to use the arena to bear a higher marginal burden of financing it (sales tax)
2. I'm okay with subsidizing a monopoly industry that has shown little regard for the cities it uses for its teams
3. I'm okay with a highly risky investment strategy and forcing people to participate whether they agree or not
4. I realize that in 15 years (well before the life the stadium) we're going to have to do this again
5. I cannot think of uses for that money that would be more productive/stimulative to the region.
If you say 'yes' to all those then fine, support the arena. If you don't agree then take a good long think about why you support keeping a team here beyond 'I like having the Bucks around.'
-
MKE fans will show up when the team is winning.
And when exactly will that be? They have only had one season above .500 in the last decade. They've only made it past the first round of the playoffs once in the last 25 years.
-
And when exactly will that be? They have only had one season above .500 in the last decade. They've only made it past the first round of the playoffs once in the last 25 years.
Go check the record of the Packers in the 70s and 80s... and the Brewers in the 90s-00s.
I'm fine with people saying that they don't want the Bucks around, but the argument that they haven't been good, and will never be good so MKE should dump them does not hold water.
The prospects for the Bucks to bounce back are high.
-
Go check the record of the Packers in the 70s and 80s... and the Brewers in the 90s-00s.
I'm fine with people saying that they don't want the Bucks around, but the argument that they haven't been good, and will never be good so MKE should dump them does not hold water.
The prospects for the Bucks to bounce back are high.
Packers still sold out. And didn't use any taxpayer money. Brewers have had their ups and downs, but they have never been in the basement in attendance like the Bucks. Given that they are in the smallest MLB market, that's not too shabby.
-
Chick, Packers have used taxpayer money. .05% sales tax in Brown County to help pay the renovations in 2001.
-
Chick, Packers have used taxpayer money. .05% sales tax in Brown County to help pay the renovations in 2001.
I stand corrected. But since 99.9% of Brown County residents are Packer fans, I am sure it wasn't very controversial.
-
The Brewers didn't have much success until Selig sold them and Miller Park was built. Prior to Attanasio buying the Brewers their payroll was near the bottom of the league and the product reflected that. The Brewers don't have to win a championship to fill the seats, they've shown just being competitive will sell tickets, I'm for giving the Bucks the same benefit of the doubt.
-
The Brewers didn't have much success until Selig sold them and Miller Park was built. Prior to Attanasio buying the Brewers their payroll was near the bottom of the league and the product reflected that. The Brewers don't have to win a championship to fill the seats, they've shown just being competitive will sell tickets, I'm for giving the Bucks the same benefit of the doubt.
+1
-
I stand corrected. But since 99.9% of Brown County residents are Packer fans, I am sure it wasn't very controversial.
Actually, it was controversial. The referendum on the sales tax only passed 53-47.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101024/GPG0101/10240662/10-years-after-sales-tax-vote-public-still-divided-over-financing-Lambeau-Field-renovations
-
The Brewers didn't have much success until Selig sold them and Miller Park was built. Prior to Attanasio buying the Brewers their payroll was near the bottom of the league and the product reflected that. The Brewers don't have to win a championship to fill the seats, they've shown just being competitive will sell tickets, I'm for giving the Bucks the same benefit of the doubt.
Again - all SUPER tenuous justifications for building a stadium with public funding.
-
I love this headline in today's JS ::)
Incoming Bucks owners could make dramtic changes
I just read in the Seattle Times that the new Bucks owners were spotted buying up umbrellas and galoshes. Someone should tell them that people in the Emerald City use neither...
-
The Brewers didn't have much success until Selig sold them and Miller Park was built. Prior to Attanasio buying the Brewers their payroll was near the bottom of the league and the product reflected that. The Brewers don't have to win a championship to fill the seats, they've shown just being competitive will sell tickets, I'm for giving the Bucks the same benefit of the doubt.
Selig - That guy is a snake. I read an article stating that he made around $20 million per season, while the Brewers were down in the 90's/2000's. Throw in the steroid scandal and you see that this guy is a bonafide, turd polisher.
-
(https://www.nrcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Wrong.gif)
Chick seems to have found a brand new workout: Backpedaling. best done after looking like an ass
As easy as it would be to extend the miller park tax, its a policy that won't be supported. Key to get anything accomplished is to keep the legislature from voting on it.
The only way the Super TIF would work would be in the budget, no legislator wants to take a single vote on the Bucks. But then again MMAC is a heck of a lobbying organization.
A new BC will need to get close to $350m in private investment and paid upfront sponsorships. by then you might get corporate/county bonding and a TIF.
An overlooked option is negotiating a way is to use the already collected sale tax from the Wisconsin Center District to go towards a new arena. Within Milwaukee County, the district collects a 2.5% tax on hotel rooms, a 3% tax on car rentals and a 0.50% tax on food and beverage sales. It also receives a 7% hotel room tax formerly collected by the City of Milwaukee.
This year (2013) the district expects to collect $27 million from those taxes: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/head-of-wisconsin-center-district-says-it-has-no-money-for-arena-b9937584z1-212163831.html
Some part of $27m over 20 years would be more than enough if the above is included.
-
It ultimately comes down to who has a big wiener game.
These guys are savvy investors. They sink some capital in the Bucks, demand a new venue, when the taxpayers back there refuse they sell to Hansen and Balmer and walk away with a handsome return.
-
Public financing for a stadium is never popular. Of the 3 in the state, Lambeau was the easiest. Miller Park was VERY controversial ultimately passing by one vote in Madison, and costing that politician his job in the next election. I personally supported Miller Park as I am convinced that Milwaukee is far more a baseball town rather than a (pro) basketball town. And 3.0 million fans every years would seem to corroberate that. And County Stadium was fully 50 years old when replaced. Moreover, Miller's convertible roof utility completely changed the dynamic for baseball in Milwaukee.
I think the Bucks ownership (both new and old) just took a major step by agreening to finance roughly 40% of a new arena. Is it enough? I'm not sure. Do I support it? Again, I'm not sure. Like chick, I think Milwaukee would embrace an NHL franchise in a refurbished (say $100MM spent) BMO Bradley. It would be superior to most NHL facilities. Anyway, its all a pretty tough call and far from a done deal long term.
-
If I had to guess, it is because of racism
So you are ok with tax breaks for oil companies then, because more exploration, more jobs, more tax income.
The reason I think most people cringe at stadium deals vs private businesses is the nature of the business. When people see a baseball stadium used for 81 games a year, maybe 3 concerts and a few other things, it bothers them. When they see a football stadium being used for 10 Sundays a year, maybe a truck pull and a rugby tournament, at the cost of $800 million, it bothers them. Private businesses are slugging it out 365 days a year and usually involve many more full time people (jobs), plus brain power (engineers, technicians, MBAs, etc) that are good to have in large quantities in your city, state, etc. When one lives in a community and sees the local and\or state gov't having to put up $350M or whatever for a place where a bunch of guys play a game, wrong or right perception, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many when there are other ways that money could be spent. Again, wrong or right, that's the perception many people have. Then some of the guys on the team get into trouble, the team sucks, etc, etc, it doesn't help the cause. So in my view, it is not an appropriate comparison because of the very real and\or perceived differences with sports vs day-to-day business.
Let the people decide.
Come on - I was almost feeling bad for picking on you too much ;D
AKMARQ - the part in teal is just a joke. Chicos and I just do this as part of our responses to each other. He knows I'm right about everything, so.....
-
These guys are savvy investors. They sink some capital in the Bucks, demand a new venue, when the taxpayers back there refuse they sell to Hansen and Balmer and walk away with a handsome return.
It worked out so well for the Marlins and the city of Miami. Why not try it here?
-
Public financing for a stadium is never popular. Of the 3 in the state, Lambeau was the easiest. Miller Park was VERY controversial ultimately passing by one vote in Madison, and costing that politician his job in the next election. I personally supported Miller Park as I am convinced that Milwaukee is far more a baseball town rather than a (pro) basketball town. And 3.0 million fans every years would seem to corroberate that. And County Stadium was fully 50 years old when replaced. Moreover, Miller's convertible roof utility completely changed the dynamic for baseball in Milwaukee.
I think the Bucks ownership (both new and old) just took a major step by agreening to finance roughly 40% of a new arena. Is it enough? I'm not sure. Do I support it? Again, I'm not sure. Like chick, I think Milwaukee would embrace an NHL franchise in a refurbished (say $100MM spent) BMO Bradley. It would be superior to most NHL facilities. Anyway, its all a pretty tough call and far from a done deal long term.
Actual question, not being snarky, which NHL team is looking to move? I could live with that trade. I would love to keep the Bucks in town, even if that means continuing the stadium tax (yeah, I know they probably won't). However, if we replace them with another major sports franchise, then I would be ok with that.
-
Actual question, not being snarky, which NHL team is looking to move? I could live with that trade. I would love to keep the Bucks in town, even if that means continuing the stadium tax (yeah, I know they probably won't). However, if we replace them with another major sports franchise, then I would be ok with that.
Not sure but my point is that several NHL franchises would seemingly think Milwaukee is a better alternative then their current situation much like the new owners of the Bucks might think that eventually relocating to Seattle might enhance the value of their new investment. Highest and best use stuff.
-
I never like one penny of public funding going toward making rich people even richer. Sadly, that's the way the game has been played for a couple of decades now.
If you want a major-league team (and by that, I mean a team in one of the four major pro leagues), you have to play by the unwritten but accepted rules. If you don't want that team, then let it go.
Some cities/counties/states like to use a tourist tax on rental cars, hotel rooms, etc., to build these things. That, of course, is a big shell game -- Minnesotans visit Wisconsin and pay for the arena there; Wisconsinites visit Arizona and pay for the arena there; Arizonans visit California and pay for the arena there; Californians visit Minnesota and pay for the arena there; etc.
I hear what Chicos is saying: Put it up for a vote! But we don't put all kinds of taxes up for a referendum vote. At least not directly; we do vote for the legislators who enact them. Maybe we should put gun control and abortion and pollution regulations and wars up for referendum votes, too? No, that is why we have elections.
-
This has been covered a few times, but Milwaukee is as best 5th in the queue for an NHL Team
Portland/Seattle, Las Vegas, Kansas City, a 2nd Toronto (Hamilton) team and Quebec are all pushing for teams too.
besides, in a scenario where the bucks leave what owner in their right mind would move an NHL team after the Bucks are shown the door?
Why do you think Attanasio is so keen on helping finance a new BC arena? its so that in 10-15-25 years when MP needs a re-up he can show that he was a team player and helped the Bucks stay.
Now if MU was to start a program...
-
Actual question, not being snarky, which NHL team is looking to move? I could live with that trade. I would love to keep the Bucks in town, even if that means continuing the stadium tax (yeah, I know they probably won't). However, if we replace them with another major sports franchise, then I would be ok with that.
Need to add Hartford to the list also. Our governor recently announced there are 3 legitimate parties that he is in contact with who want to bring the NHL back to Hartford. He reiterated there was no guarantee it will happen and they are keeping everything tight-lipped. There's also rumblings of a new Downtown Hartford arena in the works. Apparently Hartford needs a new building for UConn men's & women's basketball and UConn hockey (that's upgrading to Hockey East) anyway as the XL Center is like 45 years old.
The Boston Bruins recently stated they prefer a team back in Hartford and I read a quote from an unnamed NHL insider they regret letting the Whalers relocate in the first place.
Ari listed cities that have interest in NHL. Kansas City is the classic example of if you build it they still don't come. From what I read, Seattle will only build the new arena if an NBA team is involved. A second team in Toronto will never happen as Toronto & Buffalo will never allow it. Hartford is a bigger media market than KC & Milwaukee with no other professional sport's competition. I would have doubts about anything professional in Vegas. Quebec is legit and they are building a new arena. And there is something with the TV contract and the number of Canadian based teams. So if I team moves to Quebec, another team cannot move to Canada as it would violate the percentage allotment.
-
I left Houston off the list too. its more like the NHL wants to add another Texas team and Houston is the largest market without one.
The Toronto/Hamilton team in interesting because its believed that the size of the city can support another team, but that might be blocked by Buffalo since a sizeable chunk of their fans are Canadian
Seattle --> KC -->Hartford --> Quebec --> Milwaukee in the best case scenario for NHL
I've argued that the NHL should market test some of these potential relocation cites with new Winter outdoor games - even if they're just exhibition.
Dabble a toe in the water with games at MP, Arrowhead, Century Link...
-
The stadium series is a horrible way to test the market. It's a novelty and people will always show.
Use playoff TV numbers, college hockey to judge a market. I'm positive Houston won't support an NHL team.
-
These guys are savvy investors. They sink some capital in the Bucks, demand a new venue, when the taxpayers back there refuse they sell to Hansen and Balmer and walk away with a handsome return.
Either way, they are going to walk away with a nice return. The city builds them a new playhouse, new revenue streams, free rent, huge take on concessions and parking, value of franchise goes up....they sell in 15 years, the ROI is crazy good with much of it on the backs of taxpayers. Or, they move it under the scenario you mentioned by holding another town hostage and getting a bidding war to do exactly that.
Either way, they come out smelling like a rose.
-
The stadium series is a horrible way to test the market. It's a novelty and people will always show.
Use playoff TV numbers, college hockey to judge a market. I'm positive Houston won't support an NHL team.
* It's my understanding that Hartford-New Haven has some of the best playoff TV ratings.
* Hartford Whalers merchandise surprising sells the most or is consistently one of the Top 5 sellers in the NHL.
* The college hockey teams in Connecticut are very strong also.
* It's been an insult all these years that the AHL team that replaced the Whalers is the NY Rangers farm team.
-
* It's my understanding that Hartford-New Haven has some of the best playoff TV ratings.
* Hartford Whalers merchandise surprising sells the most or is consistently one of the Top 5 sellers in the NHL.
* The college hockey teams in Connecticut are very strong also.
* It's been an insult all these years that the AHL team that replaced the Whalers is the NY Rangers farm team.
Hartford, the Whale?
(http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g246/sey115/hellhathnofury_zps52d87f73.gif)
-
Yale University has it's own rink designed by architect Eero Saarinen that everyone refers to as "The Yale Whale."
-
Need to add Hartford to the list also.
Can Hartford support a major league franchise? I mean, it has what? 14, 15 thousand people? Or are you including Kewauskum?
-
Hard to believe that the Clippers sale price may end up being $2 billion more than the Bucks. Market for the Clips is out of control. With no real estate a part of the deal, on paper, anything above $2 billion is crazy.
-
Yeah but, it's LA. New owners have a sleepin' giant and won't lose any bread.
-
Back to the Brewers & Bucks...in 2001 the Brewers sent their Sausage Mascots down to Water & Wisconsin wearing Bucks jerseys during the lunch hour in April & May trying to piggy back on Bucks Fever. SI or ESPN called Bucks fans the best in the league (a slap in the face to Arco, btw). Bucks games were sold out. Even in the flop season of 2002 tickets were very, very hard to come by.
Milwaukee is a front running town. Win and they're in and they're in big. Support of the Bucks, given a better product, is a given. I think the NHL would face a long road here. This is not Minnesota, hockey is a foreign sport to most.
-
Hard to believe that the Clippers sale price may end up being $2 billion more than the Bucks. Market for the Clips is out of control. With no real estate a part of the deal, on paper, anything above $2 billion is crazy.
At first glance it is. But, the mega-rich will always buy money trees when they become available - whatever the cost.
-
Can Hartford support a major league franchise? I mean, it has what? 14, 15 thousand people? Or are you including Kewauskum?
Is there really a Hartford, WI?
-
Is there really a Hartford, WI?
it even has its own huge mineshaft ;)
-
Back to the Brewers & Bucks...in 2001 the Brewers sent their Sausage Mascots down to Water & Wisconsin wearing Bucks jerseys during the lunch hour in April & May trying to piggy back on Bucks Fever. SI or ESPN called Bucks fans the best in the league (a slap in the face to Arco, btw). Bucks games were sold out. Even in the flop season of 2002 tickets were very, very hard to come by.
Milwaukee is a front running town. Win and they're in and they're in big. Support of the Bucks, given a better product, is a given. I think the NHL would face a long road here. This is not Minnesota, hockey is a foreign sport to most.
There are elements of "front running" in any fanbase. I think the problem that Brewers fans had from about the mid 90s until about 2010, and that Bucks fans have now, isn't just that they were bad...but there was/is no hope. When you are *so* bad for *so* long, most fans are going to find something else better to do with their time.
The truly diehard, show up no matter what, fanbases are the exceptions to the rule.
-
There are elements of "front running" in any fanbase. I think the problem that Brewers fans had from about the mid 90s until about 2010, and that Bucks fans have now, isn't just that they were bad...but there was/is no hope. When you are *so* bad for *so* long, most fans are going to find something else better to do with their time.
The truly diehard, show up no matter what, fanbases are the exceptions to the rule.
I would agree. I obviously contradict myself by saying the NHL would have a hard road here. I think given equal teams, the NBA would out draw the NHL in Milwaukee.
-
There are elements of "front running" in any fanbase. I think the problem that Brewers fans had from about the mid 90s until about 2010, and that Bucks fans have now, isn't just that they were bad...but there was/is no hope. When you are *so* bad for *so* long, most fans are going to find something else better to do with their time.
The truly diehard, show up no matter what, fanbases are the exceptions to the rule.
Miami would disagree with you.
-
Is there really a Hartford, WI?
Yea. One of the guys who stood up at the wedding is from there. Nice little place, actually.