MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: GGGG on January 26, 2015, 08:42:48 PM
-
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/walker-expected-to-announce-plan-for-support-of-new-arena-b99433581z1-289859321.html?page=1
"Gov. Scott Walker is expected to announce Tuesday morning that he plans to put into the state budget a financing plan that includes bonding to help build a multipurpose arena in downtown Milwaukee.
A source familiar with Walker's plan said the governor's plan relies on the diversion of income taxes paid by visiting National Basketball Association athletes as well as Milwaukee Bucks players to pay the debt service on the bonding. The plan also could include diverting sales taxes paid for some goods and services at the new arena."
...
"The Bucks have not yet named a specific site for the arena, though the leading candidate appears to be the land just north of the BMO Harris Bradley Center."
-
Awesome, but will the street car stop there?
-
Great to hear. Hopefully no local politicos attempt to make a name for themselves by derailing it.
-
Great to hear. Hopefully no local politicos attempt to make a name for themselves by derailing it.
With his aspirations, Walker wouldn't take the chance of being repudiated by a Republican legislature. If he's announcing it, they're on board.
-
Sounds good to me. It looks like we're getting some leadership on this issue.
-
With his aspirations, Walker wouldn't take the chance of being repudiated by a Republican legislature. If he's announcing it, they're on board.
Hope you're right. But I can't help but think one or more will try to stop it.
-
Hope you're right. But I can't help but think one or more will try to stop it.
Oh, I'm sure there will be a few grandstanders, but not enough to derail it.
-
Would love to see the Grand Avenue site, given proximity to MU. Although anything in Downtown is good for us.
-
I wonder what happens to the Mecca and the BC? It seems like overkill having the three venues. Maybe demo the Mecca? Some good memories in that building but I think that makes sense.
-
New arena in the Park East property, BC to be demolished.
-
done deal?
-
So is the actual arena going to be in the Park East lot (between Juneau and McKinley), or the land between the BC and Juneau?
-
I wonder what happens to the Mecca and the BC? It seems like overkill having the three venues. Maybe demo the Mecca? Some good memories in that building but I think that makes sense.
UWM Panther Arena is the crown jewel of Milwaukee. So sayeth three people from UWM.
-
UWM Panther Arena is the crown jewel of Milwaukee. So sayeth three people from UWM.
They should buy it then and save us the faux drama.
-
New arena in the Park East property, BC to be demolished.
I heard differently, but doesn't mean it's wrong. Would be the most expensive option of the ones I've seen but the least politically difficult.
-
It's nice UWM has so much money to spend on stadium naming rights...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/walker-proposes-13-cut-more-freedom-for-uw-system-b99433644z1-289880441.html
Walker's announcement will come just days after UWM Chancellor Mark Mone on Friday told faculty of the College of Letters & Science that the university system was likely to face large cuts, and that they would be more painful than previous trims because "we don't have the (cash) reserves we had then, and we don't have the flexibility because of tuition freezes going forward at least two years."
Mone said whatever is ahead "may be one of the biggest challenges UWM has faced."
-
JS site isn't likely at this point, but it isn't dead yet.
Also, Walker's plan is outlined here-
http://www.rightwisconsin.com/dailytakes/breaking-walkers-plan-to-help-bucks-relies-on-growth-in-revenue-289918211.html
-
JS site isn't likely at this point, but it isn't dead yet.
Also, Walker's plan is outlined here-
http://www.rightwisconsin.com/dailytakes/breaking-walkers-plan-to-help-bucks-relies-on-growth-in-revenue-289918211.html
If the state can fiscally get away with that, and the new arena isn't shortchanged, that would really be something. Can't imagine that those in the know would have a problem with that.
-
So $220 million from the state? Looks like his accounting method is a little different from what has been discussed previously, but I don't really care as long as it gets done.
-
So $220 million from the state? Looks like his accounting method is a little different from what has been discussed previously, but I don't really care as long as it gets done.
Previous accounting didn't take into account the essential TIF around concessions and other vender sales at the new arena that the Governor is now proposing.
-
I meant the previous discussions said there was $10.7M in sales tax annually from the Bucks/visiting teams. Now they're saying it's $6.5M and using the difference to pay off the bonds.
-
I heard differently, but doesn't mean it's wrong. Would be the most expensive option of the ones I've seen but the least politically difficult.
UWM and Gimbel, too much crying. Path of least resistance taken, I would be extremely elated if it wasn't true though.
-
UWM and Gimbel, too much crying. Path of least resistance taken, I would be extremely elated if it wasn't true though.
Too bad, but I agree. Can we make UWM buy the arena? Probably not as they have a sweet heart lease deal, that is costing taxpayers. Can't blame UWM for not wanting to give up a great deal that has low payouts by UWM and high payouts by the district that owns the area. Financially it makes no sense for anyone but UWM.
Really too bad that UWM is part of the problem, given that they are taxpayer supported. Gimbel's legacy will be bad deals and old buildings in need of tax dollars in the future if he and UWM get their way.
-
...
Gimbel's legacy will be bad deals and old buildings in need of tax dollars in the future if he and UWM get their way.
I think that's already his legacy.
-
I think that's already his legacy.
Probably true. So he is doubling down on the legacy just to be sure? ;D
-
Journtinel article on the plan...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-jock-tax-will-cover-220-million-for-new-bucks-arena-b99433734z1-289935421.html
-
I think many of you know that I've been opposed to the new arena if public financing was involved. I have to admit that Governor Walker's proposal looks sound based on what I know and is likely something that I'd support. Nice work by the assembled team that I'm told includes Goldman Sachs. The only real question is whether the escalation in state revenues from the player tax will meet projections. But from what I can tell, there seems to be no slight of hand or double counting.
-
Hate the guy and 90% of what he stands for but I actually do like this plan and looking forward to it.
-
Hate the guy and 90% of what he stands for but I actually do like this plan and looking forward to it.
Let's stay away from politics Bag. Rather, we can have an intelligent discussion of the specifics of the Governor's proposal.
-
Let's stay away from politics Bag. Rather, we can have an intelligent discussion of the specifics of the future President's Governor's proposal.
FIFY
-
I think many of you know that I've been opposed to the new arena if public financing was involved. I have to admit that Governor Walker's proposal looks sound based on what I know and is likely something that I'd support. Nice work by the assembled team that I'm told includes Goldman Sachs. The only real question is whether the escalation in state revenues from the player tax will meet projections. But from what I can tell, there seems to be no slight of hand or double counting.
Agree completely - get uneasy when financing is discussed, but this is really well thought out. I love the Bradley Center, but as a Richmond Virginia native prior to coming to Marquette, I can't tell you how exciting VCU's move from the Bradley Center-lite (Richmond Coliseum) to a more intimate venue sparked Havoc. This could be exciting. Don't make it so small that I can't afford tickets (UVa at VCU regular season game was going from $400 to $1500 a seat from what I was told), but I would love to see an ALMOST packed home venue with fans on top of visiting players.
-
I think many of you know that I've been opposed to the new arena if public financing was involved. I have to admit that Governor Walker's proposal looks sound based on what I know and is likely something that I'd support. Nice work by the assembled team that I'm told includes Goldman Sachs. The only real question is whether the escalation in state revenues from the player tax will meet projections. But from what I can tell, there seems to be no slight of hand or double counting.
There is always some slight of hand, but I'm in the same boat with you. Public financing with new taxes, etc, is crap for arenas and stadiums, IMO. There are many many more important things that the public dollars should go toward. IF they have truly found a way to do this without tapping into new taxes, etc, and not adding to a mountain of debt that can't be serviced, I'm all for it. I have my suspicions that this is too good to be true, but at least the creative approach out of the gate is palatable.
-
Hate the guy....
Why do you hate the guy? Lots of POLS I despise their politics, but I don't hate the person. What makes you hate the person as you claim?
-
Let's stay away from politics Bag. Rather, we can have an intelligent discussion of the specifics of the Governor's proposal.
I agree we should stay away just wanted to make sure my support of this plan wasn't misconstrued to be any support for the governor.
Why do you hate the guy? Lots of POLS I despise their politics, but I don't hate the person. What makes you hate the person as you claim?
Not getting baited :-*
-
Hate him or like him, you can all say your smarter than him since you graduated.
-
I agree we should stay away just wanted to make sure my support of this plan wasn't misconstrued to be any support for the governor.
Bag, why the heck should anyone here care?
Back to the plan. A couple of things I applaud. First, Walker made it absolutely clear that the existing NBA players tax stream to the state (the $6.0MM) wasn't to be touched but only the next dollar on top of that. I believe most experts believed that those dollars were about to be redeployed from the current general revenue stream over to the arena. That would have been an example of 'slight of hand' in my way of thinking so kudos.
Second, the Governor forcefully made the point that the state will LOSE revenue WHEN the Bucks leave assuming no arena is built. It's a fair argument as WI is guaranteed to lose the Bucks if no arena is built. Moreover, roughly $100MM must be invested in the BMO BC anyway if that is to remain the primary downtown facility. So it could be argued that the taxpayer actually loses if no new facility is built as there won't be ballplayers to pay for it. That's the selling job the Governor has in places like Rhinelander as he mentioned.
Lastly, there's the argument made that players taxes ought be used to 'fix the potholes' and that billionaires should pay the entire bill. To that I say those are two straw man arguments because we won't have NBA players paying taxes if no arena is built and we make lots of decisions at the state level to support corporate ventures we deem worthy.
I think I'm convincing myself. Interested in what others have to say.
-
New arena in the Park East property, BC to be demolished.
It's actually not park east land, it's the land north of the Bradley Center, that the Bradley Center board already owns. Between Highland and Juneau.
-
Way to go, Gov!
-
Hate him or like him, you can all say your smarter than him since you graduated.
Can't tell if your joking here or not.
-
Can't tell if your joking here or not.
He's joking.
-
Hate him or like him, you can all say your smarter than him since you graduated.
Does Walker use better spelling than some Marquette grads?
-
My first question on these matters is always "Is it good for MU?". Yes I believe this is a very good development for MU. New Arena, plus redevelopment only works to our benefit. We should keep smiling and encouraging. Hold off making financial commitments until the entire picture is clear. Keep pushing for a location as near to campus as possible.
-
I am 100% behind this plan. I'm a pragmatist for the most part, I don't like tax revenue funding private enterprises but that is the reality of the world we live in. Unless we had a compact from every city in the US that they would not spend public money on private enterprises, this is what is what has to happen. The fact that they were able to maintain a steady state tax revenue and only pledge future revenue is a solid decision. As JSGlow pointed out, the only risk is if the projects don't work out.
Just think of it in terms of asset acquisition....we are essentially using funds from the asset to fund its acquisition so that we can guarantee future revenue.
-
Right now, MU doesn't have any say in the facility since they haven't committed any skin for the game, aina?
-
I am 100% behind this plan. I'm a pragmatist for the most part, I don't like tax revenue funding private enterprises but that is the reality of the world we live in. Unless we had a compact from every city in the US that they would not spend public money on private enterprises, this is what is what has to happen. The fact that they were able to maintain a steady state tax revenue and only pledge future revenue is a solid decision. As JSGlow pointed out, the only risk is if the projects don't work out.
Just think of it in terms of asset acquisition....we are essentially using funds from the asset to fund its acquisition so that we can guarantee future revenue.
I basically agree with this, but like Chicos, I do have my doubts that these numbers will actually work. I have a feeling these bonds will eventually have to rely on sources other than the increase in the jock tax. But that point, this entire thing will be history.
-
I basically agree with this, but like Chicos, I do have my doubts that these numbers will actually work. I have a feeling these bonds will eventually have to rely on sources other than the increase in the jock tax. But that point, this entire thing will be history.
No doubts that there are some unknowns. But here's one thing we do know. If an arena isn't built the NBA will repurchase the Bucks and will certainly move them. Remember that I was fully prepared to lose them if John Q. Public was going to have to foot the bill for the majority of the arena. There's a mechanism being proposed that the Bucks fully support that prevents that.
I think I heard that there's still a $50 million gap and the the Governor is privately insisting that Milwaukee and Milwaukee County come up with that so that they have skin in the game. Let's see if Barrett and Abele can get on board. I do remember the bi*ching and complaining in 1988 when local government was asked to move the rescue mission and repave some streets. As I've long said, every Milwaukee native should be forced to live somewhere else for a year so they know how unbelievably good they've got it.
-
No doubts that there are some unknowns. But here's one thing we do know. If an arena isn't built the NBA will repurchase the Bucks and will certainly move them. Remember that I was fully prepared to lose them if John Q. Public was going to have to foot the bill for the majority of the arena. There's a mechanism being proposed that the Bucks fully support that prevents that.
I think I heard that there's still a $50 million gap and the the Governor is privately insisting that Milwaukee and Milwaukee County come up with that so that they have skin in the game. Let's see if Barrett and Abele can get on board. I do remember the bi*ching and complaining in 1988 when local government was asked to move the rescue mission and repave some streets. As I've long said, every Milwaukee native should be forced to live somewhere else for a year so they know how unbelievably good they've got it.
Walker probably wants Milwaukee county to invest, but all he said is 300 million has to be secured. The bucks are already at 250 million not including minority owners investing in the new site, or naming rights. If 50 million is all they need to raise I don't think they need anything from Milwaukee county.
-
Walker probably wants Milwaukee county to invest, but all he said is 300 million has to be secured. The bucks are already at 250 million not including minority owners investing in the new site, or naming rights. If 50 million is all they need to raise I don't think they need anything from Milwaukee county.
I too am convinced they'll get there. I also think Walker has the muscle to push this through the Legislature. Both houses are controlled by Republicans and he needs to demonstrate his ability to 'get something done' as he runs for President. Without going too political, I think this creative plan becomes a plank in his stump speech about 'new ideas'. Sometimes timing is everything.
-
Where is the "it's happening"gif? I think it is time to break that one out.
There will be theater and push back, locally and state wide. But it will happen, no doubt. It will be a show, but in the end there will be plenty of votes, in my opinion.
I still have hope, since the City and County are taking the "let's see where it is at before we support it" that it will be a better location than north of the BC. But in the end, regardless, it gets done even if it is north of the BC. Albeit with less county/city money if it is north of the BC.
There is so much underutilized land south of Wisconsin Ave near 4th and Wisconsin that I still hold out some hope (despite the evidence to the contrary) that it ends up near that location. It is to bad that 794 still exists and was rebuilt. It should be a boulevard on the ground. I understand if the Buck's owners don't want to located near a raised interstate. Too bad that was ever built and then rebuilt.
-
I too am convinced they'll get there. I also think Walker has the muscle to push this through the Legislature. Both houses are controlled by Republicans and he needs to demonstrate his ability to 'get something done' as he runs for President. Without going too political, I think this creative plan becomes a plank in his stump speech about 'new ideas'. Sometimes timing is everything.
New, creative, economically sound plans that improve infrastructure and grow the economy - I can see why so many people hate this guy ::)
-
The only downside to the plan is that because the person proposing it has a capital letter next to his name, 50% of everyone immediately views it with distrust.
Seems like a creative solution to me, and it's by far the best proposal we've heard on the subject so far.
-
Even Barrett said it was a great plan. The people that might take issue are the republican controlled legislature. This would be a semi disaster for Walker if he can't convince his own party to support this right before he runs for president.
-
Even Barrett said it was a great plan. The people that might take issue are the republican controlled legislature. This would be a semi disaster for Walker if he can't convince his own party to support this right before he runs for president.
If it is within the overall budget bill, it will be very hard to remove.
-
Glow and Chick,
You two have some insider status and ACFI (remember that) background. Does it make sense for MU to think about getting involved in financing the new arena, and if so at what level?
-
Agreed, this plan looks like something that will pass, and we'll have a new stadium in a few years.
Now we'll all have the great pleasure of paying more for MU tickets, more for parking, more for food, more for beer.
Hooray! Everything is awesome.
-
Glow and Chick,
You two have some insider status and ACFI (remember that) background. Does it make sense for MU to think about getting involved in financing the new arena, and if so at what level?
It was ACCO in my day, FTR. :)
My personal opinion is that the school should only invest in this arena if it makes sense for Marquette from a financial standpoint. That means either A) putting in upfront money gives them free (or discounted) rent, and the NPV of that rent savings is more than the initial investment, or B) Marquette's upfront participation gives them an profit-sharing stake in the arena/entertainment complex, and only if there is a more than reasonable expectation that it will indeed be profitable.
If neither of those are true, Marquette should have no role other than as a tenant.
-
Agreed, this plan looks like something that will pass, and we'll have a new stadium in a few years.
Now we'll all have the great pleasure of paying more for MU tickets, more for parking, more for food, more for beer.
Hooray! Everything is awesome.
Jeez, some people live to bitch and moan. Maybe MU can rent out a high school gym. They can charge $1 to get in...50 cents for a program...and 75 cents for a hot dog.
-
Agreed, this plan looks like something that will pass, and we'll have a new stadium in a few years.
Now we'll all have the great pleasure of paying more for MU tickets, more for parking, more for food, more for beer.
Hooray! Everything is awesome.
Wait. More for beer? I thought free beer was promised in the State of the Union address. Damn.
-
.
-
Crazy idea, but if the future street car would run a loop that served in the vicinity of the Casino, Harley Musuem, Train Station, Summerfest Grounds, Art Musuem, Water Street District, the PAC District and the New Arena and Convention District it could really be attractive as a destination for visitors.
-
Crazy idea, but if the future street car would run a loop that served in the vicinity of the Casino, Harley Musuem, Train Station, Summerfest Grounds, Art Musuem, Water Street District, the PAC District and the New Arena and Convention District it could really be attractive as a destination for visitors.
If anyone harbors any real hopes of making the streetcar... you know... something people use, then they really ought to make it go from where people are to where people want to go. So, yes, connecting it to the Arena and other places where people recreate would make sense.
-
Crazy idea, but if the future street car would run a loop that served in the vicinity of the Casino, Harley Musuem, Train Station, Summerfest Grounds, Art Musuem, Water Street District, the PAC District and the New Arena and Convention District it could really be attractive as a destination for visitors.
Good insight
-
Jeez, some people live to bitch and moan. Maybe MU can rent out a high school gym. They can charge $1 to get in...50 cents for a program...and 75 cents for a hot dog.
It's pretty obvious no one would be happy /downgrading/ our arena like you suggest. ::)
Bottom line, this is a net negative for MU season ticket holders and folks who attend games. We already have a stadium that not only meets, but arguably exceeds our needs. While having an NBA team and stadium is beneficial for recruiting, MU was already kneecapped by the BE implosion and being demoted to an Ocho-esq television network. Losing proximity to the NBA would be fractional in comparison. Not good, but we're already in a position we need to overcome far bigger issues.
There is exactly one reason, and one reason alone a new stadium "needs to be" built: to separate more money from consumers.
Sure, we'll enjoy being entertained by our Warriors playing ball in a new arena, we'll just need to open our own pocket books more for tickets, parking, food, beverages.
Yipee.
-
It's pretty obvious no one would be happy /downgrading/ our arena like you suggest. ::)
Bottom line, this is a net negative for MU season ticket holders and folks who attend games. We already have a stadium that not only meets, but arguably exceeds our needs. While having an NBA team and stadium is beneficial for recruiting, MU was already kneecapped by the BE implosion and being demoted to an Ocho-esq television network. Losing proximity to the NBA would be fractional in comparison. Not good, but we're already in a position we need to overcome far bigger issues.
There is exactly one reason, and one reason alone a new stadium "needs to be" built: to separate more money from consumers.
Sure, we'll enjoy being entertained by our Warriors playing ball in a new arena, we'll just need to open our own pocket books more for tickets, parking, food, beverages.
Yipee.
So you would rather keep the BC, lose the Bucks, and keep your Marquette tickets at relatively same price, than build a new arena, keep the Bucks, and *possibly* pay more for Marquette tickets?
Man you couldn't sound more like a cheap-a** Milwaukeean if you tried.
-
If anyone harbors any real hopes of making the streetcar... you know... something people use, then they really ought to make it go from where people are to where people want to go. So, yes, connecting it to the Arena and other places where people recreate would make sense.
Here's an idea.
Mayor McDonothing wakes up from his slumber and realizes that an arena is more important than the streetcar to nowhere. He ponies up $125 million to the arena.
City is currently a non participant in funding. That will not be well received by outstate legislators whose votes are needed to make this happen.
-
It's pretty obvious no one would be happy /downgrading/ our arena like you suggest. ::)
Bottom line, this is a net negative for MU season ticket holders and folks who attend games. We already have a stadium that not only meets, but arguably exceeds our needs. While having an NBA team and stadium is beneficial for recruiting, MU was already kneecapped by the BE implosion and being demoted to an Ocho-esq television network. Losing proximity to the NBA would be fractional in comparison. Not good, but we're already in a position we need to overcome far bigger issues.
There is exactly one reason, and one reason alone a new stadium "needs to be" built: to separate more money from consumers.
Sure, we'll enjoy being entertained by our Warriors playing ball in a new arena, we'll just need to open our own pocket books more for tickets, parking, food, beverages.
Yipee.
Stay home and watch on TV. That is, if you don't mind paying for cable.
-
It's pretty obvious no one would be happy /downgrading/ our arena like you suggest. ::)
Bottom line, this is a net negative for MU season ticket holders and folks who attend games. We already have a stadium that not only meets, but arguably exceeds our needs. While having an NBA team and stadium is beneficial for recruiting, MU was already kneecapped by the BE implosion and being demoted to an Ocho-esq television network. Losing proximity to the NBA would be fractional in comparison. Not good, but we're already in a position we need to overcome far bigger issues.
There is exactly one reason, and one reason alone a new stadium "needs to be" built: to separate more money from consumers.
Sure, we'll enjoy being entertained by our Warriors playing ball in a new arena, we'll just need to open our own pocket books more for tickets, parking, food, beverages.
Yipee.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-28652-thats-a-bold-strategy-cotton-g-g2uB.gif)
-
Here's an idea.
Mayor McDonothing wakes up from his slumber and realizes that an arena is more important than the streetcar to nowhere. He ponies up $125 million to the arena.
City is currently a non participant in funding. That will not be well received by outstate legislators whose votes are needed to make this happen.
Part of the brilliance of this plan is that it is going to be funded within the state budget. No "outstate legislator" is going to vote against the biennial budget bill because of the arena. The only way it gets out of the budget bill is if someone introduces an amendment to remove it. Now that amendment might be supported by an "outstate legislator," but that would likely be opposed by Milwaukee-area Democrats who would want the project. I am reasonably certain that this gets through the legislature unchanged.
-
If anyone harbors any real hopes of making the streetcar... you know... something people use, then they really ought to make it go from where people are to where people want to go. So, yes, connecting it to the Arena and other places where people recreate would make sense.
That ain't a street car, that's light rail. It's an important distinction from an investment standpoint.
-
So you would rather keep the BC, lose the Bucks, and keep your Marquette tickets at relatively same price, than build a new arena, keep the Bucks, and *possibly* pay more for Marquette tickets?
Man you couldn't sound more like a cheap-a** Milwaukeean if you tried.
"Possibly" pay more? You're not seriously thinking prices will stay remotely where they are? And please, phrase the response as I did, concerning tickets, parking, food and beverage.
Calling that cheap-ass is .. a cheap shot, surprising from you.
-
well it is milwaukeean ;)
-
"Possibly" pay more? You're not seriously thinking prices will stay remotely where they are? And please, phrase the response as I did, concerning tickets, parking, food and beverage.
Calling that cheap-ass is .. a cheap shot, surprising from you.
Then don't go to the games.
I heard this same line when Miller Park was built, when people had to shell out PSL's for renovated Lambeau, etc. This is part of the deal when it comes to major sports these days. It costs money. It will never go down. It will always increase. It's part of the deal.
-
"Possibly" pay more? You're not seriously thinking prices will stay remotely where they are? And please, phrase the response as I did, concerning tickets, parking, food and beverage.
Calling that cheap-ass is .. a cheap shot, surprising from you.
New stadium or not, prices aren't going anywhere but up.
As with most other products - and sports entertainment is definitely a product - the customer has the option to pay the higher price or not.
-
I'm willing to pay more to see Marquette play in a nicer stadium. I'm also willing to pay more if it means our program has another recruiting advantage.
-
They will undoubtedly get much of that 50 mil from sellin' the namin' rights, aina?
-
Only problem I have with this plan is that it relies on heavy growth and doesn't pay enough in the early years to cover the interest. If TV contracts suddenly bust the State would be on the hook. That said, it is still a hell of a deal for the city and state. $250 of private investment in a "public" arena is an excellent boost for the city.
-
It's pretty obvious no one would be happy /downgrading/ our arena like you suggest. ::)
Bottom line, this is a net negative for MU season ticket holders and folks who attend games. We already have a stadium that not only meets, but arguably exceeds our needs. While having an NBA team and stadium is beneficial for recruiting, MU was already kneecapped by the BE implosion and being demoted to an Ocho-esq television network. Losing proximity to the NBA would be fractional in comparison. Not good, but we're already in a position we need to overcome far bigger issues.
There is exactly one reason, and one reason alone a new stadium "needs to be" built: to separate more money from consumers.
Sure, we'll enjoy being entertained by our Warriors playing ball in a new arena, we'll just need to open our own pocket books more for tickets, parking, food, beverages.
Yipee.
Can they actually go up? How much more can you possibly charge for a beer? MU alums must have much more disposable income than I realize.
-
Can they actually go up? How much more can you possibly charge for a beer? MU alums must have much more disposable income than I realize.
Drink before and after. Skip the arena pricing.
-
Only problem I have with this plan is that it relies on heavy growth and doesn't pay enough in the early years to cover the interest. If TV contracts suddenly bust the State would be on the hook. That said, it is still a hell of a deal for the city and state. $250 of private investment in a "public" arena is an excellent boost for the city.
Everyone seems to agree that the new t.v. deal will be more valuable than the last one and that increase will be reflected in higher player salaries. I guess anything is possible, but I haven't heard anybody think it won't go that way.
Case in point, apparently Lebron's new deal was designed in part to give him an out during the free agency period that his people expected the salary caps to increase due to more t.v. $.
-
Everyone seems to agree that the new t.v. deal will be more valuable than the last one and that increase will be reflected in higher player salaries. I guess anything is possible, but I haven't heard anybody think it won't go that way.
The new television deal has already been signed, and is nearly triple the value.
"Under the current collective bargaining agreement, just about half of all of the NBA's basketball-related income is earmarked for player salary. The league's annual TV revenue is going from $930 million to $2.67 billion, an increase of $1.74 billion per season. (This assumes a flat contract, which may not be the case, but work with me here.) Half of that is $870 million. That's what players stand to gain per year from the TV contract bump.
Players are forecast to receive a combined $2.33 billion in salary this season. Now add an additional $870 million to that. That's an incredible increase ... without any increase in the pool of players receiving salary. (Even if there is two-team expansion in the near-future, you're only adding 30 players to the 450 current roster spots.) Total player salary will increase by 167 percent just because of the TV deal, excluding any other growth."
The only problem is that the NBA (or the players) can back out of the current deal in 2017. With these numbers, the players aren't going to opt out. However the owners very well could and try to force a deal to limit the growth of the salary cap by taking a greater share of basketball related income.
-
The new television deal has already been signed, and is nearly triple the value.
"Under the current collective bargaining agreement, just about half of all of the NBA's basketball-related income is earmarked for player salary. The league's annual TV revenue is going from $930 million to $2.67 billion, an increase of $1.74 billion per season. (This assumes a flat contract, which may not be the case, but work with me here.) Half of that is $870 million. That's what players stand to gain per year from the TV contract bump.
Players are forecast to receive a combined $2.33 billion in salary this season. Now add an additional $870 million to that. That's an incredible increase ... without any increase in the pool of players receiving salary. (Even if there is two-team expansion in the near-future, you're only adding 30 players to the 450 current roster spots.) Total player salary will increase by 167 percent just because of the TV deal, excluding any other growth."
The only problem is that the NBA (or the players) can back out of the current deal in 2017. With these numbers, the players aren't going to opt out. However the owners very well could and try to force a deal to limit the growth of the salary cap by taking a greater share of basketball related income.
+1.
However, whenever the owners try to mess with the income sharing splits, we all start talking strike again.
-
+1.
However, whenever the owners try to mess with the income sharing splits, we all start talking strike again.
It won't be a strike (player's action), it will be a lockout (owner's action). The players could try to get a better deal, but they won't.
-
How much direct tax revenue do the Bucks bring into Wisconsin per year? (that isn't already directed elsewhere like debt service on the Bradley Center or something like that)
-
Drink before and after. Skip the arena pricing.
They're 24oz, one per half is my rule. For you math guys that's 4 beers in roughly 2 hours. I walk away happy.
-
How much direct tax revenue do the Bucks bring into Wisconsin per year? (that isn't already directed elsewhere like debt service on the Bradley Center or something like that)
Walker stated about $6.5 million earlier this week
-
How much direct tax revenue do the Bucks bring into Wisconsin per year? (that isn't already directed elsewhere like debt service on the Bradley Center or something like that)
The initial estimate from a previous study was $10.7M, but the Gov's new proposal uses $6.5M as the base amount. Apparently they took out some other non-Bucks stuff from the $10.7M, and the $6.5M amount focuses just on NBA salaries.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2015/01/how-gov-walkers-nba-jock-tax-base-fell-to-6-5m.html
That tax revenue is currently just going into the general fund. It is not being directed anywhere in particular.
-
It's pretty obvious no one would be happy /downgrading/ our arena like you suggest. ::)
Bottom line, this is a net negative for MU season ticket holders and folks who attend games. We already have a stadium that not only meets, but arguably exceeds our needs. While having an NBA team and stadium is beneficial for recruiting, MU was already kneecapped by the BE implosion and being demoted to an Ocho-esq television network. Losing proximity to the NBA would be fractional in comparison. Not good, but we're already in a position we need to overcome far bigger issues.
There is exactly one reason, and one reason alone a new stadium "needs to be" built: to separate more money from consumers.
Sure, we'll enjoy being entertained by our Warriors playing ball in a new arena, we'll just need to open our own pocket books more for tickets, parking, food, beverages.
Yipee.
The price of a ticket is based on supply and demand assuming the seller (Marquette) acts rational, nothing more, nothing less. (I guess you haven't seen the discounts being offered every game this year?) Now Marquette does occasionally make mistakes in this area. I'll cite the Al game as an example. But a new arena won't have too much to do with that calculus. The reason we pay more now is because we're part of the BEast, not CUSA.
-
It was ACCO in my day, FTR. :)
My personal opinion is that the school should only invest in this arena if it makes sense for Marquette from a financial standpoint. That means either A) putting in upfront money gives them free (or discounted) rent, and the NPV of that rent savings is more than the initial investment, or B) Marquette's upfront participation gives them an profit-sharing stake in the arena/entertainment complex, and only if there is a more than reasonable expectation that it will indeed be profitable.
If neither of those are true, Marquette should have no role other than as a tenant.
Agreed. And if they do decide to invest they'll need to spell it out a helluva lot better than DePaul did. Personally, I like MU as a tenant. We're in the 'university' business, not the 'public sports venue' business. For what it's worth, our rent is currently $27,000 per game through 2017.
I will say that Dr. Lovell has talked on several occasions about MU's role in the community. Take the Avenues West restoration project, for example. I think that's fine and I think he's got a good business head on his shoulders so I'm not overly concerned.
-
Agreed. And if they do decide to invest they'll need to spell it out a helluva lot better than DePaul did. Personally, I like MU at a tenant. We're in the 'university' business, not the 'public sports venue' business.
I will say that Dr. Lovell has talked on several occasions about MU's role in the community. Take the Avenues West restoration project, for example. I think that's fine and I think he's got a good business head on his shoulders so I'm not overly concerned.
Agreed. The only way Marquette could come up with this much cash is through redirecting some of its endowment investments toward this project, but I don't think you get the "risk adjusted rate of return" necessary even if you include the cost savings of not having to pay rent.
-
Agreed. The only way Marquette could come up with this much cash is through redirecting some of its endowment investments toward this project, but I don't think you get the "risk adjusted rate of return" necessary even if you include the cost savings of not having to pay rent.
And as you know Sultan, redirecting endowment dollars is very difficult to do. Individual endowment funds have a stated purpose clearly spelled out in the governing document executed by both the benefactor and the university. Now in theory the could raise new dollars....
-
And as you know Sultan, redirecting endowment dollars is very difficult to do. Individual endowment funds have a stated purpose clearly spelled out in the governing document executed by both the benefactor and the university. Now in theory the could raise new dollars....
I would be completely against any fundraising whatsoever for this purpose. Even if some well-heeled alum walked into The Office of the President pulling a steamer trunk full of cash and said, "Here's a little sumpin'-sumpin' for the new arena", I would want Dr. Lovell to respond with, "You know, we're good there, but let me tell you about the new indoor practice facility we're trying to build..."
-
And as you know Sultan, redirecting endowment dollars is very difficult to do. Individual endowment funds have a stated purpose clearly spelled out in the governing document executed by both the benefactor and the university. Now in theory the could raise new dollars....
The endowment is made up of hundreds of funds that are invested in total. Real estate is likely part of that investment mix. I was speaking about the University hypothetically using the new arena as an endowment investment vehicle. You wouldn't need to change agreements to do that. You just better hope it is a prudent investment versus a REIT or something that spreads around risk.
-
The endowment is made up of hundreds of funds that are invested in total. Real estate is likely part of that investment mix. I was speaking about the University hypothetically using the new arena as an endowment investment vehicle. You wouldn't need to change agreements to do that.
No doubt real estate development is part of many of the over 1000 MU endowments. But let's use the example of an endowment created for the new DLC (I'll bet there are more than one). That's not getting redirected without permission. That's all I'm saying and I understand what you're saying. I just want folks here understanding how the broadly described 'university endowment' works, that's all. Have an awesome day.
-
With his aspirations, Walker wouldn't take the chance of being repudiated by a Republican legislature. If he's announcing it, they're on board.
No. Republicans will not pass Walker's plan.
-
Marquette won't be chipping in anything:
http://m.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/marquette-will-not-contribute-funds-to-new-arena-b99457243z1-295365781.html
-
Marquette won't be chipping in anything:
http://m.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/marquette-will-not-contribute-funds-to-new-arena-b99457243z1-295365781.html
As well we shouldn't. Pay rent, no risk.
-
How the heck can they charge visiting nba players with income tax? That just seems impossible...
-
Marquette won't be chipping in anything:
http://m.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/marquette-will-not-contribute-funds-to-new-arena-b99457243z1-295365781.html
Doubt that MU has a few spare millions sitting around.
-
Liking this Lovell guy more every day.
Great article. I especially liked the part where they contrasted our decision with DePaul's idiotic deal with the City of Chicago'
-
How the heck can they charge visiting nba players with income tax? That just seems impossible...
NBA players (and all athletes) have to pay taxes in every state they play in.
-
How the heck can they charge visiting nba players with income tax? That just seems impossible...
NBA players (and all athletes) have to pay taxes in every state they play in.
The theory that they hang their hat on is that the income is earned in Wisconsin when the games are played in Wisconsin regardless of where the employer is located. If you think about it, it's not different than paying Illinois state income tax when you live in Kenosha, but work in Illinois. The result is that typically an NBA player pays state income tax to his home state on half his income (home games) while paying income tax to other states on the other half of his income.
-
The theory that they hang their hat on is that the income is earned in Wisconsin when the games are played in Wisconsin regardless of where the employer is located. If you think about it, it's not different than paying Illinois state income tax when you live in Kenosha, but work in Illinois. The result is that typically an NBA player pays state income tax to his home state on half his income (home games) while paying income tax to other states on the other half of his income.
Except if I live in Wisconsin, work in Illinois, but travel to Ohio for business for a week, I usually don't pay Ohio state income tax for the week in question.
-
I think I read somewhere that not only will we get increased player salaries, but the Bucks were expanding the front office to include more people. This more salaries for 41 games.
-
Except if I live in Wisconsin, work in Illinois, but travel to Ohio for business for a week, I usually don't pay Ohio state income tax for the week in question.
there is typically a threshold number of days per year you can be out of your home state without paying tax. if you cross that threshold, you will.
-
Except if I live in Wisconsin, work in Illinois, but travel to Ohio for business for a week, I usually don't pay Ohio state income tax for the week in question.
nm
-
NBA players (and all athletes) have to pay taxes in every state they play in.
False.
-
False.
Well, not really. Pro athletes pay income tax in just about every state they play in. Pro athletes are a night,are for tax accountants. You might want to check it out before you claim false.
-
I believe JB is referring to states with no income tax...that also have NBA franchises. There's 7 states without income tax, but I think only Texas, and Florida have NBA teams.
-
I believe JB is referring to states with no income tax...that also have NBA franchises. There's 7 states without income tax, but I think only Texas, and Florida have NBA teams.
Except JB would still be wrong then. They do pay state income taxes when they play in those states. The amount is simply $0.
-
I believe JB is referring to states with no income tax...that also have NBA franchises. There's 7 states without income tax, but I think only Texas, and Florida have NBA teams.
Grizzlies (Tennessee) as well. Wonder how nice it felt to be a player who made the transition from Vancouver to Memphis back in the day between taxes and cost of living.
-
Grizzlies (Tennessee) as well. Wonder how nice it felt to be a player who made the transition from Vancouver to Memphis back in the day between taxes and cost of living.
Going from Vancouver to Memphis? Yeah, really nice. ::)
-
NBA players (and all athletes) have to pay taxes in every state they play in.
Again, this is false.
False.
You are correct, sir!
Well, not really. Pro athletes pay income tax in just about every state they play in. Pro athletes are a night,are for tax accountants. You might want to check it out before you claim false.
So.. when you say, 'not really' but follow it with 'just about every state' instead of 'every state', aren't you really say, "yes, sir, you are correct"???
"Pro athletes are a night, are for tax accountants." -- Even as a CPA and someone who is fluent in ebonics, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I have "checked it out" plenty. You can have a different opinion than me (although you're actually agreeing with me) and talk jibberish, but you will be wrong.
I believe JB is referring to states with no income tax...that also have NBA franchises. There's 7 states without income tax, but I think only Texas, and Florida have NBA teams.
There's actually far more false than the original claim. It's false on many points. (Including the "all athletes" claim, which I interpreted to mean all professional athletes, but is still false.)
Except JB would still be wrong then. They do pay state income taxes when they play in those states. The amount is simply $0.
OK, buddy. Good grief.
Grizzlies (Tennessee) as well. Wonder how nice it felt to be a player who made the transition from Vancouver to Memphis back in the day between taxes and cost of living.
Now we're getting somewhere... Tennessee brings out an interest example. There still is a jock tax (in the form that is essentially a flat fee... that went to the owners vs. the gov't... bizarre) for visiting NBA players... but in the NHL, it's a different story. NBA will get there in a couple of years, but they have different rules applied to their players as compared to the NHL players this year.
One key lesson for you dummies disagreeing with me is that there are many different taxing jurisdictions in this country. Understanding this lesson may help you from making / assuming / accepting nonsense claims about taxation on large groups.