MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: geagles10 on August 15, 2017, 10:00:58 AM
-
MarquetteMBBVerified account @MarquetteMBB 12m12 minutes ago
More
Stay tuned later today for major #mubb announcement. #WeAreMarquette
4 replies 1 retweet 18 likes
Reply 4 Retweet 1 Like 18
-
MarquetteMBBVerified account @MarquetteMBB 12m12 minutes ago
More
Stay tuned later today for major #mubb announcement. #WeAreMarquette
4 replies 1 retweet 18 likes
Reply 4 Retweet 1 Like 18
My guess: Future fall tournament announcement.
Runner-up: Future schedule announcement with major opponent.
-
No doubt that the Golden Eagles will be playing in the Real Chili Thunderdome starting in the 2018-19 season.
-
No doubt that the Golden Eagles will be playing in the Real Chili Thunderdome satrting in the 2018-19 season.
Ah yes. An arena announcement makes sense.
-
Probably open the 2018-2019 season in the new stadium with UW.
-
Probably open the 2018-2019 season in the new stadium with UW.
oh even better... ND
-
On campus arena??? ;)
-
Agreement with Bucks, ainner?
-
Warrior name coming back! #donedeal
-
No doubt that the Golden Eagles will be playing in the Real Chili Thunderdome starting in the 2018-19 season.
That's my guess. Haven't heard anything though. (Not that I would.)
-
How about opening up the new arena against Duke?
-
I'm guessing a combo of arena deal finalized with a major non-conference opponent visiting in the opening year.
-
How about opening up the new arena against Duke?
No, Coach K does not schedule games against former Duke assistants.
-
Probably about which player was seen at Jimmy John's in a walking boot.
-
As a fall conditioning exercise, the team will be the foundation of the newly formed Marquette D-1 football team.
-
https://twitter.com/Bucks/status/897489920729784324
-
https://twitter.com/Bucks/status/897489920729784324
Page does not exist.
-
Peep the tenants on the wiki page for the new arena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Entertainment_and_Sports_Center
-
Bucks took down the tweet.
http://www.nba.com/bucks/milwaukee-bucks-marquette-university-announcement
-
Peep the tenants on the wiki page for the new arena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Entertainment_and_Sports_Center
Page hasn't been edited since August 6.
-
Warrior name coming back! #donedeal
Yep!
-
Bucks took down the tweet.
http://www.nba.com/bucks/milwaukee-bucks-marquette-university-announcement
Looks like construction guys setting up podium for live broadcast
-
The guy speaking .. isn't that a Warrior shirt he's wearing? #it'shappening #donedeal
-
https://twitter.com/marquettembb/status/897497162468265984
Arena announcement
-
7 year lease?
-
Wojo has been let go and Crean has been rehired. #done deal
Buzz, KO and SS will serve as his assistants. And Larry W is returning as AD.
;)
-
7 year lease?
Our new on-campus arena should be online by then.
-
Warrior stadium #donedeal
-
The undertone of the speeches was spectacular. sounds very much like the Bucks put the screws to Marquette.
-
The undertone of the speeches was spectacular. sounds very much like the Bucks put the screws to Marquette.
You're not kidding. Scholl's line about "how difficult this was" not normally what you hear at a warm-and-fuzzy announcement link this.
-
So why is it only seven years? Is that normal?
-
So why is it only seven years? Is that normal?
I feel very confident in saying Marquette is exploring every possible home court option for the 2025-2026 season.
-
So why is it only seven years? Is that normal?
I suspect that there are renewal options in the lease agreement. 7 years is a long time these days.
-
So why is it only seven years? Is that normal?
Not normal. That's about how long it will take MU to raise money and build an on-campus.
-
So why is it only seven years? Is that normal?
No, and that was one of the major bones of contention. MU wanted at least a 15 year deal, the Bucks want much shorter leases so they can exploit opportunities as much as possible.
Bucks original offer was a 3 year lease....hardball
-
I can't make out what this thread is saying ..
https://twitter.com/PaintTouches/status/897502069359165440
First it seems like he's saying rent per game is $10k net the revenue from suites .. 20 games = $200k/year. Not sure where the other numbers come from.
-
Not normal. That's about how long it will take MU to raise money and build an on-campus.
Oh lord, not this mental masturbation again. It ain't happening. MU has so much capital invested in other projects (Wild Commons, new Rec Center, new Business School, Innovation Alley, etc) that an on-campus is about as likely as you winning the megamillions jackpot (mostly because the school would need you to donate all of it to get an on-campus arena)
Edit: Oh and significant tuition hikes are planned for next year just to pay for the planned investment I mentioned....there ain't money laying around for an arena to build and operate.
-
No, and that was one of the major bones of contention. MU wanted at least a 15 year deal, the Bucks want much shorter leases so they can exploit opportunities as much as possible.
Bucks original offer was a 3 year lease....hardball
Hardball because Marquette didn't make an initial contribution to the building or just because that's how these guys are?
-
Hardball because Marquette didn't make an initial contribution to the building or just because that's how these guys are?
Yes
-
The undertone of the speeches was spectacular. sounds very much like the Bucks put the screws to Marquette.
They did. MU and the Bucks are now officially only business partners. The days of 'friendly Herb' are over. But the reality is they both need each other and know it.
-
They did. MU and the Bucks are now officially only business partners. The days of 'friendly Herb' are over. But the reality is they both need each other and know it.
I'm not so sure the Bucks know it. Now that they got their arena financed on the public's back, I'm pretty sure the Bucks don't think they need anyone.
-
Significant tuition hike? Yikes. How many people are going to be able to afford that price for a school that isn't significantly better than the cheaper options out there?
Just offer up to bring the Warriors name back in exchange for donations for an on campus arena and it'll get done real fast, hey?
-
Here is an official announcement.
http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/081517aab.html
Edit: The arena contract ends at the same time the Fox TV contract ends, coincidence?
-
I'm not so sure the Bucks know it. Now that they got their arena financed on the public's back, I'm pretty sure the Bucks don't think they need anyone.
I think that's a bridge too far eng. While MU does not have the sway that UW has statewide, we're an important player in Milwaukee. Pissing off the University and SE Wisconsin alumni base by being complete a-holes puts a pretty severe crimp in your still fragile ticket base. And that's dumb business. Nobody says these guys are dumb. They're just from New York, not Milwaukee.
-
I can't make out what this thread is saying ..
https://twitter.com/PaintTouches/status/897502069359165440
First it seems like he's saying rent per game is $10k net the revenue from suites .. 20 games = $200k/year. Not sure where the other numbers come from.
Good digging there topper. Be interesting to know what the new deal looks like.
-
I think that's a bridge too far eng. While MU does not have the sway that UW has statewide, we're an important player in Milwaukee. Pissing off the University and SE Wisconsin alumni base by being complete a-holes puts a pretty severe crimp in your still fragile ticket base. And that's dumb business. Nobody says these guys are dumb. They're just from New York, not Milwaukee.
I think you're overestimating Marquette's importance as a player in Milwaukee. IMO we are an incredible but often times underappreciated contributor. I do not think the Bucks are concerned about our importance at all.
-
I think you're overestimating Marquette's importance as a player in Milwaukee. IMO we are an incredible but often times underappreciated contributor. I do not think the Bucks are concerned about our importance at all.
Agreed. If it were a following of UW's size within the state, that could cause an issue.
They may think an on-campus 10K person arena means a freeing of people to spend their basketball viewing money on the Bucks. Granted, I would assume that marginal increase isn't as much as our annual rent.
-
I think you're overestimating Marquette's importance as a player in Milwaukee. IMO we are an incredible but often times underappreciated contributor. I do not think the Bucks are concerned about our importance at all.
Well when the Marquette games bring in 14,000-17,000 potential customers to the Bucks arena, they should look at is as each game being a big marketing tool for the Bucks. If people enjoy their time at a Marquette and want to come back to see the Bucks because of the environment, the Bucks should be happy with Marquette. Then there's something called the NCAA tournament that Marquette helped the Bucks get.
-
Hardball because Marquette didn't make an initial contribution to the building or just because that's how these guys are?
Don't think the first part played in too much. Definitely on the second part.
-
I think that's a bridge too far eng. While MU does not have the sway that UW has statewide, we're an important player in Milwaukee. Pissing off the University and SE Wisconsin alumni base by being complete a-holes puts a pretty severe crimp in your still fragile ticket base. And that's dumb business. Nobody says these guys are dumb. They're just from New York, not Milwaukee.
The Bucks don't care about Milwaukee period.....that's a little harsh but while there is a we're New York guys element some of it is simply because they don't really care about Milwaukee all that much.
-
Whoopee! Here I thought Quentin Grimes verbaled to MU.
-
I think you're overestimating Marquette's importance as a player in Milwaukee. IMO we are an incredible but often times underappreciated contributor. I do not think the Bucks are concerned about our importance at all.
Okay, we disagree. Let's say the Bucks play ridiculous hardball and literally force MU into the 'B' tenant slot at the Arena as an extreme example. You think the WI political leaders on both sides of the aisle would take kindly to that? You think Bucks suite sales remain the same? You think the Journal Sentinel doesn't splash that and denounce these guys repeatedly for failing to 'support the community'? You think Gov. Walker doesn't have a little chat with his new buddy Terry Gou?
I'm not saying that Lasry and Edens give a rat's behind about us. There's no doubt the relationship has soured. But they do care about their own image and business prospects and I'm simply saying they aren't stupid. The relationship will remain publicly cordial and business-like, just like today.
-
Okay, we disagree. Let's say the Bucks play ridiculous hardball and literally force MU into the 'B' tenant slot at the Arena as an extreme example. You think the WI political leaders on both sides of the aisle would take kindly to that?
I think WI political leaders kinda sorta of care about MU like they kinda sorta care about UW-Fond du Lac.
-
Okay, we disagree. Let's say the Bucks play ridiculous hardball and literally force MU into the 'B' tenant slot at the Arena as an extreme example. You think the WI political leaders on both sides of the aisle would take kindly to that? You think Bucks suite sales remain the same? You think the Journal Sentinel doesn't splash that and denounce these guys repeatedly for failing to 'support the community'? You think Gov. Walker doesn't have a little chat with his new buddy Terry Gou?
I'm not saying that Lasry and Edens give a rat's behind about us. There's no doubt the relationship has soured. But they do care about their own image and business prospects and I'm simply saying they aren't stupid. The relationship will remain publicly cordial and business-like, just like today.
Glow, I think you underestimate how little the Bucks (Lasry, Edens, and especially Feigen) care for Wisconsin politics of either party. I think you are correct, that they are going to do what it takes to keep a "clean" image in the community, but ultimately they are going to be a real pain to deal with behind the scenes because they have all the leverage now that they have their stadium.
-
Okay, we disagree. Let's say the Bucks play ridiculous hardball and literally force MU into the 'B' tenant slot at the Arena as an extreme example. You think the WI political leaders on both sides of the aisle would take kindly to that? You think Bucks suite sales remain the same? You think the Journal Sentinel doesn't splash that and denounce these guys repeatedly for failing to 'support the community'? You think Gov. Walker doesn't have a little chat with his new buddy Terry Gou?
I'm not saying that Lasry and Edens give a rat's behind about us. There's no doubt the relationship has soured. But they do care about their own image and business prospects and I'm simply saying they aren't stupid. The relationship will remain publicly cordial and business-like, just like today.
I think you are really overestimating Marquette's importance as a player in Milwaukee.
-
Yikes.
I think everyone in here is too Wisconsin-centric. Period. Of course, the Bucks owners are from out-of-state. That doesn't make them evil except, perhaps, in Wisconsin. They drove a tough bargain with Marquette because they could. They did not do anything that any of us under the same circumstances wouldn't do.
The Bucks took their negotiating advantage and leveraged it to no end. We can either play at the Arena, without the suite revenue and with 4,000 to 7,000 unfulfilled fans a game, or we can sign on the line.
Eventually, we could build an on-campus arena of our own but don't expect me as a contributing alum to support or contribute to it. Marquette has other needs, including scholarships that enable qualified students to attend Marquette. With that coming tuition hike, they're going to need all the scholarship support they can get.
-
Sounds like it might have made a little sense to put a little money up front in order to buy some equity in the arena. The state would have jumped all over that.
-
Glow, I think you underestimate how little the Bucks (Lasry, Edens, and especially Feigen) care for Wisconsin politics of either party. I think you are correct, that they are going to do what it takes to keep a "clean" image in the community, but ultimately they are going to be a real pain to deal with behind the scenes because they have all the leverage now that they have their stadium.
I have had dealings with the Bucks owners in the business world and they are an unsavory sort. Everything to them is dollars and cents and words in contracts, while there is nothing wrong with that, they could care less about Milwaukee. The way they look at it ,the Bucks were an NBA franchise available at a discount, and they made the deal. Their whole mode was to get the new arena built and then position the franchise for sale to the group from Seattle. I look for that to happen about 5-7 years from now.
Knowing these guys as well as I do, we will be their new best friends about the time they go to sell the franchise. They will need a good tenant to absorb some of the rent they have committed to on their end.
We should forget the athletic research center and start raising money now to build our own arena on that site. The beauty is we control that land and the last I looked the footprint was big enough to put in an arena similar in size to BMO Harris Bradley. I would gladly donate to that effort .
-
I have had dealings with the Bucks owners in the business world and they are an unsavory sort. Everything to them is dollars and cents and words in contracts, while there is nothing wrong with that, they could care less about Milwaukee. The way they look at it ,the Bucks were an NBA franchise available at a discount, and they made the deal. Their whole mode was to get the new arena built and then position the franchise for sale to the group from Seattle. I look for that to happen about 5-7 years from now.
Knowing these guys as well as I do, we will be their new best friends about the time they go to sell the franchise. They will need a good tenant to absorb some of the rent they have committed to on their end.
We should forget the athletic research center and start raising money now to build our own arena on that site. The beauty is we control that land and the last I looked the footprint was big enough to put in an arena similar in size to BMO Harris Bradley. I would gladly donate to that effort .
They ain't selling the franchise, not only is it going to make them money hand over foot for the next 10 years but it's a huge ego play for them to be one of thirty owners in the NBA. And just watch what the Rockets go for, they'll use that valuation to leverage even more funds for whatever side ventures they want without having to liquidate capital via sale of the team.
Everything else you have is just put tinfoil hattery. The athletic research center is going to be one of the things that puts MU on the map for all the expense it's going to be. Like it or not MU has decided they want to be the Dartmouth of the midwest and having such a signature research program is critical to that plan.
-
I have had dealings with the Bucks owners in the business world and they are an unsavory sort. Everything to them is dollars and cents and words in contracts, while there is nothing wrong with that, they could care less about Milwaukee. The way they look at it ,the Bucks were an NBA franchise available at a discount, and they made the deal. Their whole mode was to get the new arena built and then position the franchise for sale to the group from Seattle. I look for that to happen about 5-7 years from now.
Knowing these guys as well as I do, we will be their new best friends about the time they go to sell the franchise. They will need a good tenant to absorb some of the rent they have committed to on their end.
We should forget the athletic research center and start raising money now to build our own arena on that site. The beauty is we control that land and the last I looked the footprint was big enough to put in an arena similar in size to BMO Harris Bradley. I would gladly donate to that effort .
LOL :o
-
Like it or not MU has decided they want to be the Dartmouth of the midwest and having such a signature research program is critical to that plan.
If it means being in the same conference as the Harvard of the Midwest, I'll pass.
Can't we be the Stanford of the Midwest instead?
-
I think WI political leaders kinda sorta of care about MU like they kinda sorta care about UW-Fond du Lac.
Barry Alvarez and Bo Ryan completely flipped the script on our perception in this state. Badgers athletics is a strong #2 behind only the Packers. Certainly we have alums in top places but the University of Wisconsin has never been healthier in all facets.
I think they could have pushed us out and it only would have hurt their rental revenues. I think otherwise it would have been a blip.
-
We should forget the athletic research center and start raising money now to build our own arena on that site. The beauty is we control that land and the last I looked the footprint was big enough to put in an arena similar in size to BMO Harris Bradley. I would gladly donate to that effort .
Should we do this before or after we cut the freshman class in half to improve our acceptance rate?
-
They ain't selling the franchise, not only is it going to make them money hand over foot for the next 10 years but it's a huge ego play for them to be one of thirty owners in the NBA. And just watch what the Rockets go for, they'll use that valuation to leverage even more funds for whatever side ventures they want without having to liquidate capital via sale of the team.
Everything else you have is just put tinfoil hattery. The athletic research center is going to be one of the things that puts MU on the map for all the expense it's going to be. Like it or not MU has decided they want to be the Dartmouth of the midwest and having such a signature research program is critical to that plan.
Yes they are watching what the Rockets go for and carefully positioning themselves for a similar sale. They are not going to be able to leverage the Franchise value because of a lack of cashflow. Also ,remember they have local partners in the deal, so they dont have full access to the cashflow to re leverage. Only way to get money out is to sell it. I agree it is an ego play, but for these guys the ego plays don't get in the way of making money. Remember neither one of the primary owners ever built a business, they were just financial arbitrage guys who were smart enough to not make too many bad trades. I have had lots of dealings with sports franchise owners in NFL, NBA and MLB over the years and they fall into two camps. One is the camp that loves the team etc and wants to be a long term holder. People like the Mara family. The second are opportunists. These guys clearly fall into the second grouping. Nothing wrong with that. Just know the animal when I see it.
The athletic research center was just a mechanism to get an indoor playing field for Soccer and Lacrosse. The early solid success of Lacrosse was leveraged into getting the bubble on Valley Fields and that is working well now. T We can knock down the old gym and make that an athletic research center. he only comparability we have to Dartmouth is the percentage of students drinking.
-
Yes they are watching what the Rockets go for and carefully positioning themselves for a similar sale. They are not going to be able to leverage the Franchise value because of a lack of cashflow. Also ,remember they have local partners in the deal, so they dont have full access to the cashflow to re leverage. Only way to get money out is to sell it. I agree it is an ego play, but for these guys the ego plays don't get in the way of making money. Remember neither one of the primary owners ever built a business, they were just financial arbitrage guys who were smart enough to not make too many bad trades. I have had lots of dealings with sports franchise owners in NFL, NBA and MLB over the years and they fall into two camps. One is the camp that loves the team etc and wants to be a long term holder. People like the Mara family. The second are opportunists. These guys clearly fall into the second grouping. Nothing wrong with that. Just know the animal when I see it.
The athletic research center was just a mechanism to get an indoor playing field for Soccer and Lacrosse. The early solid success of Lacrosse was leveraged into getting the bubble on Valley Fields and that is working well now. T We can knock down the old gym and make that an athletic research center. he only comparability we have to Dartmouth is the percentage of students drinking.
you're so full of sh!t. herb kohl knew their intentions better than you...
-
If it means being in the same conference as the Harvard of the Midwest, I'll pass.
Can't we be the Stanford of the Midwest instead?
(http://media.giphy.com/media/kwNSxdqqutsEE/giphy.gif)
-
you're so full of sh!t. herb kohl knew their intentions better than you...
In the words of Pardon My Take, "Uhh, no duh!"
-
Yes they are watching what the Rockets go for and carefully positioning themselves for a similar sale. They are not going to be able to leverage the Franchise value because of a lack of cashflow. Also ,remember they have local partners in the deal, so they dont have full access to the cashflow to re leverage. Only way to get money out is to sell it. I agree it is an ego play, but for these guys the ego plays don't get in the way of making money. Remember neither one of the primary owners ever built a business, they were just financial arbitrage guys who were smart enough to not make too many bad trades. I have had lots of dealings with sports franchise owners in NFL, NBA and MLB over the years and they fall into two camps. One is the camp that loves the team etc and wants to be a long term holder. People like the Mara family. The second are opportunists. These guys clearly fall into the second grouping. Nothing wrong with that. Just know the animal when I see it.
The athletic research center was just a mechanism to get an indoor playing field for Soccer and Lacrosse. The early solid success of Lacrosse was leveraged into getting the bubble on Valley Fields and that is working well now. T We can knock down the old gym and make that an athletic research center. he only comparability we have to Dartmouth is the percentage of students drinking.
I'd be willing to wager you some amount of money to a charity of your choice if I'm wrong(vice versa if you are) about the Bucks still being in Milwaukee 7 years from now.
Here's mine:
http://specialops.org/ (http://specialops.org/)
-
Okay, we disagree. Let's say the Bucks play ridiculous hardball and literally force MU into the 'B' tenant slot at the Arena as an extreme example. You think the WI political leaders on both sides of the aisle would take kindly to that? You think Bucks suite sales remain the same? You think the Journal Sentinel doesn't splash that and denounce these guys repeatedly for failing to 'support the community'? You think Gov. Walker doesn't have a little chat with his new buddy Terry Gou?
I'm not saying that Lasry and Edens give a rat's behind about us. There's no doubt the relationship has soured. But they do care about their own image and business prospects and I'm simply saying they aren't stupid. The relationship will remain publicly cordial and business-like, just like today.
I think in general nobody would care (outside of MU fans) unless it resulted in the Buck's needing more public money to offset the MU rent they did not get.
-
This might not be the standard opinion around here, but I have no doubt that Marquette got what they wanted out of this deal as well. I'm sure these "rough, tough New Yorkers" tightened the screws on MU somewhat. However, I also believe MU has lawyers and negotiators better than money can buy. I'm a big Bucks fan and, while these new owners have done a lot of positive for the team, they rub me the wrong way in how they handle almost everything.
-
I think in general nobody would care (outside of MU fans) unless it resulted in the Buck's needing more public money to offset the MU rent they did not get.
That's actually one good thing about the new Bucks deal relative to their current situation in the BMO BC. They actually do owe a 7 figure check to the governing authority every year. Now is it 'market'? Heck no. But it's not zero like now.
-
This might not be the standard opinion around here, but I have no doubt that Marquette got what they wanted out of this deal as well. I'm sure these "rough, tough New Yorkers" tightened the screws on MU somewhat. However, I also believe MU has lawyers and negotiators better than money can buy. I'm a big Bucks fan and, while these new owners have done a lot of positive for the team, they rub me the wrong way in how they handle almost everything.
MU got what it needed, but certainly not what it wanted. It's not a reflection on MU's intelligence or ability, but if you don't hold the leverage there is only so much you can do. MU needs the Bucks more than they need MU, so the deal balances out that way.
C'est la vie
-
I have had dealings with the Bucks owners in the business world and they are an unsavory sort. Everything to them is dollars and cents and words in contracts, while there is nothing wrong with that, they could care less about Milwaukee. The way they look at it ,the Bucks were an NBA franchise available at a discount, and they made the deal. Their whole mode was to get the new arena built and then position the franchise for sale to the group from Seattle. I look for that to happen about 5-7 years from now.
Knowing these guys as well as I do, we will be their new best friends about the time they go to sell the franchise. They will need a good tenant to absorb some of the rent they have committed to on their end.
We should forget the athletic research center and start raising money now to build our own arena on that site. The beauty is we control that land and the last I looked the footprint was big enough to put in an arena similar in size to BMO Harris Bradley. I would gladly donate to that effort .
First of all, I think it is safe to say that you have never dealt with the owners of the Bucks.
Second, the Bucks have a 30 year lease with the WCD. Good luck getting out of that in 5-7 years.
-
MU got what it needed, but certainly not what it wanted. It's not a reflection on MU's intelligence or ability, but if you don't hold the leverage there is only so much you can do. MU needs the Bucks more than they need MU, so the deal balances out that way.
C'est la vie
And Eng, you simply have to remember that they would have been negotiating with Herb and/or Marc in the past. New world brother. It worked out. It was always going to.
-
First of all, I think it is safe to say that you have never dealt with the owners of the Bucks.
Second, the Bucks have a 30 year lease with the WCD. Good luck getting out of that in 5-7 years.
I believe there was an actual clause in the deal these two struck with Kohl that said if they attempted to sell the team or relocate, they would lose control of the team.
-
Not taking sides because I think a lot of this is perception and there is some element of truth to all of these perspectives.
However, the poster that claims to have dealt with them is only saying that they are positioning to sell, not move the team. The Bucks aren't going anywhere anytime soon but could ownership change? IMO opinion, it's possible.
-
I believe there was an actual clause in the deal these two struck with Kohl that said if they attempted to sell the team or relocate, they would lose control of the team.
Yup. The guy quite literally, as is almost always the case when he's posting, has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and is spewing complete and utter BS. I'm very confident he's never spoken to/dealt with the owner of any major professional sports team in his life, let alone done it "a lot." He is from the school of thought that if you speak confidently enough on a subject, people are just going to believe you because you sound like you know what you're talking about. Sadly for him people on Scoop realize anybody can be anything they want when hiding behind a computer screen using an anonymous screen name (or, in his case, multiple anonymous screennames that he uses to legitimize each other). He went from the brother of a Marquette basketball recruit from New Mexico to a guy who personally knows every recruit/player that has ever considered Marquette basketball and all of their family members and the character of all involved to someone who does business with multiple major professional athletic team owners in New York. :o The guy is legitimately crazier than ChicoLoopTelevisionJames.
-
Not taking sides because I think a lot of this is perception and there is some element of truth to all of these perspectives.
However, the poster that claims to have dealt with them is only saying that they are positioning to sell, not move the team. The Bucks aren't going anywhere anytime soon but could ownership change? IMO opinion, it's possible.
No he implied they will move to Seattle
Their whole mode was to get the new arena built and then position the franchise for sale to the group from Seattle. I look for that to happen about 5-7 years from now.
-
No he implied they will move to Seattle
Their whole mode was to get the new arena built and then position the franchise for sale to the group from Seattle. I look for that to happen about 5-7 years from now.
The odds that these guys hold on to something, anything for 10 years seems very low. The Bucks will be here for 30 years but it's almost certain the ownership structure will be very different even by 2026.
Marquette seems to have gotten the right length, it gives Wojo certainty for recruiting and allows them to kick the tires in the next few years on a host of options.
-
Yes they are watching what the Rockets go for and carefully positioning themselves for a similar sale. They are not going to be able to leverage the Franchise value because of a lack of cashflow. Also ,remember they have local partners in the deal, so they dont have full access to the cashflow to re leverage. Only way to get money out is to sell it. I agree it is an ego play, but for these guys the ego plays don't get in the way of making money. Remember neither one of the primary owners ever built a business, they were just financial arbitrage guys who were smart enough to not make too many bad trades. I have had lots of dealings with sports franchise owners in NFL, NBA and MLB over the years and they fall into two camps. One is the camp that loves the team etc and wants to be a long term holder. People like the Mara family. The second are opportunists. These guys clearly fall into the second grouping. Nothing wrong with that. Just know the animal when I see it.
The athletic research center was just a mechanism to get an indoor playing field for Soccer and Lacrosse. The early solid success of Lacrosse was leveraged into getting the bubble on Valley Fields and that is working well now. T We can knock down the old gym and make that an athletic research center. he only comparability we have to Dartmouth is the percentage of students drinking.
Wow! Marquette has seriously tumbled in the rankings since the mid-70's if Dartmouth has caught MU in this area.
-
Marquette seems to have gotten the right length, it gives Wojo certainty for recruiting and allows them to kick the tires in the next few years on a host of options.
This. I know people are rolling their eyes at the idea of Marquette building on campus stadium and they might be right, but I promise you that by the time this lease is up, Marquette will have researched every possible option for a home stadium for men's basketball, including building an on campus arena. Part of the reason that Marquette was in a tough position this season was because there were no other options. We couldn't fund-raise and build a stadium by 2018-2019. We couldn't go play in UW Milwaukee Arena. We couldn't play in the Al. Only option was the Bradley Center so the Bucks could put the screws to us. By the time this merry go around comes back round again, Marquette will have multiple possible options researched so they can come to the table with a little more leverage.
-
The naming rights deal for UWM Panther Arena was a 10 year deal signed in 2014, so it will expire the same time as Marquette's new lease in the new arena. The old Arena might be a more viable option for us in the future if it's not named after UWM.
-
UWM can extend it by 5 years.
-
The naming rights deal for UWM Panther Arena was a 10 year deal signed in 2014, so it will expire the same time as Marquette's new lease in the new arena. The old Arena might be a more viable option for us in the future if it's not named after UWM.
I was wondering about that. Not that MU wants to head there but theoretical options will give MU a little more leverage on the next go around.
-
I was wondering about that. Not that MU wants to head there but theoretical options will give MU a little more leverage on the next go around.
I would imagine the best thing MU can do is get the attendance figures back up again (i.e. Win consistently). The rest would likely take care of itself.
-
The naming rights deal for UWM Panther Arena was a 10 year deal signed in 2014, so it will expire the same time as Marquette's new lease in the new arena. The old Arena might be a more viable option for us in the future if it's not named after UWM.
I was wondering about that. Not that MU wants to head there but theoretical options will give MU a little more leverage on the next go around.
This was my thought. No way Marquette wants to go back to the Mecca, but it gives them a viable option to compete with the Bucks.
I would imagine the best thing MU can do is get the attendance figures back up again (i.e. Win consistently). The rest would likely take care of itself.
This also couldn't hurt. If Marquette returns to a dominant power in college basketball with the attendance to back it we will get a much better deal the next time around.
-
Scoopers, pony up. Let's buy the Bucks as a group & rent to MU for a dollar
-
Scoopers, pony up. Let's buy the Bucks as a group & rent to MU for a dollar
#donedeal
Can we cut Bronson Koenig immediately?
-
That's quite the leverage........
MU: if you don't give us the deal we want at Silk Exotic Arena we would be willing to go back to UWM Panther Arena--as you know this is an absolute last resort for us and we would hate doing it...but we would do it!
BUCKS: oh no! Name your price MU! We never anticipated that you would bluff that you go back to UWM Panther Arena, but we see that you are serious!
Advantage MU! ::)
-
#donedeal
Can we cut Bronson Koenig immediately?
funny of the month! now that was a good one!!
-
That's quite the leverage........
MU: if you don't give us the deal we want at Silk Exotic Arena we would be willing to go back to UWM Panther Arena--as you know this is an absolute last resort for us and we would hate doing it...but we would do it!
BUCKS: oh no! Name your price MU! We never anticipated that you would bluff that you go back to UWM Panther Arena, but we see that you are serious!
Advantage MU! ::)
If we did, it would no longer be called UWM Milwaukee Arena. And yes, that is leverage. An undesirable option is better leverage than no option. And while I don't know what the number is, there is a number where it would be better for Marquette to go back to the Mecca than to pay the Bucks what they are asking for.
As others have said, the Bucks and Marquette both need each other. Right now, Marquette needed the Bucks more. The next time around, I suspect Marquette will have made moves to make sure those needs are a little more even.
-
When the leverage is that undesirable it's about the same as no leverage at all.
It's like playing poker when the other guy can see your cards.
Going back to the Arena would be unacceptable to everyone involved ......it isn't happening and everyone knows it.
-
If we did, it would no longer be called UWM Milwaukee Arena. And yes, that is leverage. An undesirable option is better leverage than no option.
As other have said, your undesirable option may not be an option at all. UWM has first dibs on their Arena.
Also, as others have said, it is undesirable. Not much leverage at all really. Everybody knows, including everyone at that negotiating table, that MU does not want to go back......so not much leverage.
-
Wow! Marquette has seriously tumbled in the rankings since the mid-70's if Dartmouth has caught MU in this area.
There is nothing to do in those New Hampshire back woods in the dead of winter.
-
Marquette's only leverage in the deal was to offer to buy the BC.The Bucks owners wanted that land grab and MU lost it before they even knew as it was all roses then. Make no mistake, this is a real estate deal from the get-go, and it will be on their exit, including dumping the debt. These are real estate guys.
And no, I don't think the state would have taken money from a God-believing school. Nor did the Bucks owners want it in reality. Was MU fleeced? No. Did MU screw the pooch a little? Probably. If $200k is the rent, is that bad? No. Cost of a hyperbaric chamber, ai-na?
-
Marquette's only leverage in the deal was to offer to buy the BC.The Bucks owners wanted that land grab and MU lost it before they even knew as it was all roses then. Make no mistake, this is a real estate deal from the get-go, and it will be on their exit, including dumping the debt. These are real estate guys.
And no, I don't think the state would have taken money from a God-believing school. Not did the Bucks owners want it in reality. Was MU fleeced? No. Did MU screw the pooch a little? Probably. If $200k is the rent, is that bad? No. Cost of a hyperbaric chamber, ai-na?
That is pretty much how I see it. The reality is the Bucks took control from the beginning , with the NBA playing the role of the bad guy , and convinced the Government entities to fund the deal. MU elected not to participate in the equity or offer to take over the BC for the cost of maintaining it. So the net result was we ended up paying retail for the lease. Not the end of the world and maybe the flexibility will end up being a benefit.
The Bucks have a provision to pay back the public debt if they want to cancel the lease. Do the math, Houston Rockets are going to sell for 3 times what the Bucks sold for. There is plenty of room for a nice profit even after paying back the debt. If the new owner does elect to move the franchise, MU is in a better position to deal with the controlling entity of the arena whoever that will be.
In all events, MU needs to position itself to build a new campus campus arena on the scale of the Century Link facility that Creighton has. It is very feasible as we have the land to do it and the money/financing could be raised. Part of my desire to see our US News rating improve, is the ability to generate more funding for the new arena. If we could get well in the top 50, we could raise tuition $10,000 a year (which is still less than Georgetown, Boston College and Villanova). which would go a long way toward funding the necessary payments on the financing.
In the meantime, we can enjoy the attendant benefits and publicity of the new arena. Hopefully we are in a better position in the future if we have to renew.
-
That is pretty much how I see it. The reality is the Bucks took control from the beginning , with the NBA playing the role of the bad guy , and convinced the Government entities to fund the deal. MU elected not to participate in the equity or offer to take over the BC for the cost of maintaining it. So the net result was we ended up paying retail for the lease. Not the end of the world and maybe the flexibility will end up being a benefit.
The Bucks have a provision to pay back the public debt if they want to cancel the lease. Do the math, Houston Rockets are going to sell for 3 times what the Bucks sold for. There is plenty of room for a nice profit even after paying back the debt. If the new owner does elect to move the franchise, MU is in a better position to deal with the controlling entity of the arena whoever that will be.
In all events, MU needs to position itself to build a new campus campus arena on the scale of the Century Link facility that Creighton has. It is very feasible as we have the land to do it and the money/financing could be raised. Part of my desire to see our US News rating improve, is the ability to generate more funding for the new arena. If we could get well in the top 50, we could raise tuition $10,000 a year (which is still less than Georgetown, Boston College and Villanova). which would go a long way toward funding the necessary payments on the financing.
In the meantime, we can enjoy the attendant benefits and publicity of the new arena. Hopefully we are in a better position in the future if we have to renew.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/BPZ7PflL6xypO/giphy.gif)
-
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/BPZ7PflL6xypO/giphy.gif)
You need to abandon the provincial mindset.
-
You need to abandon the provincial mindset.
Says the guy who thought Henry was going to be here four years.
-
If the Bucks leave ......the new arena will still need a tenant.........so I think it will be ok.
The NBA doesn't typically allow teams to relocate once they get a new arena......it would be horrible PR
Conspiracy theories are fun but try to get out of your own head once in awhile......
-
If the new Bucks owners were Wisconsinites, would half this room be saying the prickly things about them that they do?
The biggest offense this group seems to have is they are dollar hungry out-of-staters.
They are not dollar hungry cheeseheads. It presumably would make everything OK if they were.
Grow up folks. There's life beyond the Illinois or Minnesota border.
-
If the Bucks leave ......the new arena will still need a tenant.........so I think it will be ok.
The NBA doesn't typically allow teams to relocate once they get a new arena......it would be horrible PR
Conspiracy theories are fun but try to get out of your own head once in awhile......
The NBA will encourage the Bucks ownership to sell if the team has a run of non performance.. The league is going to be going international at some point and really does not want to have franchises in backwaters like Milwaukee. They will wait till Herb Kohl is senile before they actively push a sale The league is not a bunch of dummies and will not want to piss off a former US Senator.
-
Sounds like it might have made a little sense to put a little money up front in order to buy some equity in the arena. The state would have jumped all over that.
I recall hearing that during the finance portion, Bucks ownership told Marquette not to worry about making an up front contribution.
-
The NBA will encourage the Bucks ownership to sell if the team has a run of non performance.. The league is going to be going international at some point and really does not want to have franchises in backwaters like Milwaukee. They will wait till Herb Kohl is senile before they actively push a sale The league is not a bunch of dummies and will not want to piss off a former US Senator.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
-
If the new Bucks owners were Wisconsinites, would half this room be saying the prickly things about them that they do?
The biggest offense this group seems to have is they are dollar hungry out-of-staters.
They are not dollar hungry cheeseheads. It presumably would make everything OK if they were.
Grow up folks. There's life beyond the Illinois or Minnesota border.
Ehh. It's more of the fact that they don't have concern for anything beyond their own bottom-line. There are even some questionable decisions they have made within the Bucks org itself that have Bucks fans questioning whether these guys are motivated by a championship or by the bottom-line.
Pretty crapty thing for anyone to do to come in and buy a team and proceed to milk it exclusively as a cash cow - in state or out.
-
If the new Bucks owners were Wisconsinites, would half this room be saying the prickly things about them that they do?
The biggest offense this group seems to have is they are dollar hungry out-of-staters.
They are not dollar hungry cheeseheads. It presumably would make everything OK if they were.
Grow up folks. There's life beyond the Illinois or Minnesota border.
I'm not sure that's quite it dg. I can't quite put my finger on it but I do view these guys differently than Mark Attanasio. I completely understand their approach to MU and that perhaps our side was a bit taken back by the process. I would have had no problem with them saying that the $1.2M pricetage was going to $2.0M or even higher. But if Eng is correct and they started at 3 years I would have found that to be completely unreasonable, intentionally damaging to the university, and indicative of them not being very good corporate citizens.
-
If the Bucks leave ......the new arena will still need a tenant.........so I think it will be ok.
The NBA doesn't typically allow teams to relocate once they get a new arena......it would be horrible PR
Conspiracy theories are fun but try to get out of your own head once in awhile......
Without a major anchor tenant like the Bucks, proper funding for maintance would likely be a problem.
-
UWM can extend it by 5 years.
Allstae Arena then. Beer summit at my place pregame.
-
If the new Bucks owners were Wisconsinites, would half this room be saying the prickly things about them that they do?
The biggest offense this group seems to have is they are dollar hungry out-of-staters.
They are not dollar hungry cheeseheads. It presumably would make everything OK if they were.
Grow up folks. There's life beyond the Illinois or Minnesota border.
WTF are you talking about? I don't think anyone is particularly blaming the Bucks owners for doing what they are doing. Some think it is the wrong tactic because in the long-run it will backfire on them, but everyone realizes that they are no longer dealing with a BC board and a Bucks owner that gave MU a deal in the past.
Stop assuming everyone in Wisconsin is a provincial hick. I mean, you're a Cardinal fan...
-
All sorts of stupid going on in here still, I see.
Here's a bit of intelligence that might average things out: Who the hell cares what the motivations/mindsets were during discussions. Who the hell cares if the new Bucks ownership loves or hates Wisconsin. Who the hell cares how much Dartmouth students drink (aside: it's a lot more than you think... as in likely more than the rest of the Ivy combined).
The gosh darn tootin' lease is signed. MU is playing at the new arena - guaranteed - for the next 7 years and potentially well beyond that (there's likely a few extension options in there as well).
And rest assured that MU is not putting up an on-campus arena until I write a check because the hell if you think that I'm going to allow anyone else's name on that building.
-
Who the hell cares how much Dartmouth students drink
Sadly, death of Toga
http://www.unionleader.com/courts/toga-partys-over-for-dartmouth-fraternity-that-inspired-animal-house-20170411
-
[...]
And rest assured that MU is not putting up an on-campus arena until I write a check because the hell if you think that I'm going to allow anyone else's name on that building.
please tell us it will be the "Benny B Hole."
please oh please oh please.
-
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Never stopped him from simply pulling facts out of his ass about everything
-
Marquette's only leverage in the deal was to offer to buy the BC.The Bucks owners wanted that land grab and MU lost it before they even knew as it was all roses then. Make no mistake, this is a real estate deal from the get-go, and it will be on their exit, including dumping the debt. These are real estate guys.
And no, I don't think the state would have taken money from a God-believing school. Nor did the Bucks owners want it in reality. Was MU fleeced? No. Did MU screw the pooch a little? Probably. If $200k is the rent, is that bad? No. Cost of a hyperbaric chamber, ai-na?
If I read the article right from Philly its said that Nova would have to spend 125M to upgrade the Pavillion to a 10 to 12K facility which they are not doing. At 200k per game rent that is about 3.6M per year for 16 games. Do the math. It will take MU more than 25 years in rent to build an on campus facility for 125M. Even if the Bucks increase the rent after 7 years, MU is better off renting.
-
Ehh. It's more of the fact that they don't have concern for anything beyond their own bottom-line. There are even some questionable decisions they have made within the Bucks org itself that have Bucks fans questioning whether these guys are motivated by a championship or by the bottom-line.
Pretty crapty thing for anyone to do to come in and buy a team and proceed to milk it exclusively as a cash cow - in state or out.
i have no issues with anything the owners have done. i know very little about professional sports ownership...how does ownership of the new arena work? i thought i remember people ripping former pres. bush for getting an arena built with mostly tax $$$ then selling the team for a big profit. did the bucks just become worth a great deal more because of the arena, and are the owners able to benefit in the sale?
-
Anyone with a subscription that can recap?
https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/08/17/mus-scholl-lease-at-bucks-arenavery-fair-for-both.html
-
When do they drop the "new" from Athletic Director?
Is Wojo the new men's basketball coach?
-
If the new Bucks owners were Wisconsinites, would half this room be saying the prickly things about them that they do?
The biggest offense this group seems to have is they are dollar hungry out-of-staters.
They are not dollar hungry cheeseheads. It presumably would make everything OK if they were.
Grow up folks. There's life beyond the Illinois or Minnesota border.
I'll have you know that I do ALL of my major shopping at Gurnee Mills. If you don't believe me, I'll challenge you to a laser-tag duel there. Name the time and date. I will smoke you like a Usinger's sausage.
-
Anybody else find it coincidental that Shaka Smart's contract also ends seven years from now?
#LovellsMasterPlan
-
If I read the article right from Philly its said that Nova would have to spend 125M to upgrade the Pavillion to a 10 to 12K facility which they are not doing. At 200k per game rent that is about 3.6M per year for 16 games. Do the math. It will take MU more than 25 years in rent to build an on campus facility for 125M. Even if the Bucks increase the rent after 7 years, MU is better off renting.
$125M seems like an arbitrary number, but the point remains that whether or not it "makes sense" for MU to build an on-campus arena is more influenced by externalities than by finances. IOW, irrespective of payback or the cost of capital (and opportunity cost), what makes any build/own scenario a fruitless endeavor for MU today is the fact they have a brand new arena at their disposal. In the same manner, had the Bucks had left town five years ago and the BC wasn't being maintained by the district, the discussion to build (or not to build) wouldn't be about finances and payback, it would be about "do or die."
-
If I read the article right from Philly its said that Nova would have to spend 125M to upgrade the Pavillion to a 10 to 12K facility which they are not doing. At 200k per game rent that is about 3.6M per year for 16 games. Do the math. It will take MU more than 25 years in rent to build an on campus facility for 125M. Even if the Bucks increase the rent after 7 years, MU is better off renting.
I have trouble believing that the bucks pay 1.5 million in rent for the new arena and collect 3.6 million from MU..., not to mention the concessions, concerts, etc. Worse, the bucks were rent-free in the BC! and were paid shares of all revenues plus over 2 million for suite rental. Why didn't the blue/gold fund buy the BC and operate it as a for profit? Certainly could undercut the new arena, and match panther arena with a better venue. In fact, there may not be room for 3 arenas- maybe buy panther arena and bulldoze. Maybe buy..., hell, none of this makes sense to me.
-
I have trouble believing that the bucks pay 1.5 million in rent for the new arena and collect 3.6 million from MU..., not to mention the concessions, concerts, etc. Worse, the bucks were rent-free in the BC! and were paid shares of all revenues plus over 2 million for suite rental. Why didn't the blue/gold fund buy the BC and operate it as a for profit? Certainly could undercut the new arena, and match panther arena with a better venue. In fact, there may not be room for 3 arenas- maybe buy panther arena and bulldoze. Maybe buy..., hell, none of this makes sense to me.
Because it is not for sale, for one thing. That area is where the ginormous beer garden/entertainment complex is going to go.
-
I have trouble believing that the bucks pay 1.5 million in rent for the new arena and collect 3.6 million from MU..., not to mention the concessions, concerts, etc. Worse, the bucks were rent-free in the BC! and were paid shares of all revenues plus over 2 million for suite rental. Why didn't the blue/gold fund buy the BC and operate it as a for profit? Certainly could undercut the new arena, and match panther arena with a better venue. In fact, there may not be room for 3 arenas- maybe buy panther arena and bulldoze. Maybe buy..., hell, none of this makes sense to me.
You're simply not understanding how these things work. I don't want to get into a protracted discussion but a professional sports team's 'deal' has 100% to do with what other cities are willing to fork over. I'm not remembering the exact figures and I'm too lazy to go back and look but the fact that the Real Chili Arena was paid for with less than 50% public money actually made it one of the best arena construction deals in the last 25 years. In many, many places, those things are nearly 100% paid by the taxpayers; and only on the HOPE that they might actually get a team someday. Go to Louisville if you want to see 'hope and dream'.
The bottom line is that professional sports is something that communities value and one must pay to play. Now one can argue that it's not worth the price but that's a different question entirely.
-
I would guess the Arena is less expensive to maintain and run than the Bradley Center would be.
The Arena is like the old refrigerator you stick in your garage and it runs for decades.
-
I would guess the Arena is less expensive to maintain and run than the Bradley Center would be.
The Arena is like the old refrigerator you stick in your garage and it runs for decades.
And as someone said, this is a real estate development deal at its heart. All the land immediately around the Real Chili arena is already spoken for. Restaurants, condos, hotel rooms, etc. etc. The old arena is just far enough away and just useful enough as the city's second tier facility to actually be a pretty darn good fit. I like your basement refrigerator analogy.
-
More importantly the old fridge is our leverage to scare the sheet out of these NYC bullies!
-
More importantly the old fridge is our leverage to scare the sheet out of these NYC bullies!
To scare the sheet out of? No. To give us an option if the price gets out of control? Yes.
You can laugh, but I can promise you that the option has been discussed.
-
That option has been discussed with whom?
-
That option has been discussed with whom?
I am positive that Marquette's strategy going into negotiations with the Bucks won't "Well we're going to pay them whatever they want because we aren't going to go anywhere else."
-
With whom did MU discuss the option of going back to the old fridge in the basement?
-
With whom did MU discuss the option of going back to the old fridge in the basement?
I didn't say they discussed it with anybody. I said I'm sure it was discussed. Again, do you think Marquette's negotiation strategy was pay them whatever they want because we're not going anywhere else?
-
You can laugh, but I can promise you that the option has been discussed.
I can promise you that your option was not seriously discussed.
-
I can promise you that your option was not seriously discussed.
I don't think you can. Again, your advice to Marquette is pay them whatever they want because we're not going anywhere else?
You may not like the idea of going to the old fridge in the garage but the reality is that there is a number out there that is too high for Marquette to pay. I have no idea what it is or if we came close to it during this last round of negotiations but its there. I'm also confident that the Bucks ownership would have and will try to push Marquette as close to that number as possible. Which they should do as businessmen. I'm not sure why the idea of Marquette doing its due diligence and researching other options is so absurd to you.
-
Part of the reason that Marquette was in a tough position this season was because there were no other options. We couldn't fund-raise and build a stadium by 2018-2019. We couldn't go play in UW Milwaukee Arena. We couldn't play in the Al. Only option was the Bradley Center so the Bucks could put the screws to us.
You were right the first time, there were no other options.
-
You were right the first time, there were no other options.
Yes, that is what was determined. Which is why this conversation has been about the next round of negotiations that will happen sometime between now and the expiration of this lease. I would hope that Marquette uses that time to do its due diligence and put itself in a better position next time. Because as much as you try to ignore it, there is a magic number at which point it would be better for Marquette to play at the Mecca, or build its own stadium than it would be to play at the Silk Center. I have no idea what the number is but it is there.
-
So when you said it has been discussed you meant it will be discussed at some point in the the next seven years.
As much as you won't accept it, MU is never going back to the fridge in the basement. It's not leverage. It's not an option. It's not going to happen. We are tenants in a brand new building next year, just as we will be in years eight and beyond. We aren't going back.
-
So when you said it has been discussed you meant it will be discussed at some point in the the next seven years.
As much as you won't accept it, MU is never going back to the fridge in the basement. It's not leverage. It's not an option. It's not going to happen. We are tenants in a brand new building next year, just as we will be in years eight and beyond. We aren't going back.
No I said I'm sure it had been discussed for this round and am sure it will be discussed for the next. I'm sure with it currently being UWM Arena it was a non-starter. Given that the lease at the Mecca will be ending and there's more time to arrange things it will be a more viable option in the future.
I agree that we will never go back to the Fridge. Because Marquette will do its research, figure out what the magic number is where it would be better for the institution to go to the Mecca than the new stadium and make sure negotiations never get past that number. I don't even know if the Fridge is the best second option, it might be building an on campus arena, I have no idea.
We are mostly debating semantics but Marquette is not an unlimited pool of money. The idea that Marquette will pay to be in the new stadium no matter what the cost is absurd. Where do you want the money to come out of? Charge more for season tickets? Up tuition? Cut the recruiting budget? Cut financial aid and scholarships?
-
You agree that we will never go back to the fridge. If we are never going back to the fridge, then we are never going back to the fridge. As you said......never.
If that is the case, it is NOT a tool of leverage. It does not give us any sort of negotiating power. We are not going back and everyone at the negotiating table knows that.
-
And as has been noted the cost of a new facility is so prohibitive that even a rent that is higher than MU wants to pay will still be the more attractive option.
You are right MU doesn't have an unlimited source of money.....which is another reason an on campus facility isn't happening.
-
And as someone said, this is a real estate development deal at its heart. All the land immediately around the Real Chili arena is already spoken for. Restaurants, condos, hotel rooms, etc. etc. The old arena is just far enough away and just useful enough as the city's second tier facility to actually be a pretty darn good fit. I like your basement refrigerator analogy.
Old basement refrigerators are actually relatively expensive to operate.
-
Old basement refrigerators are actually relatively expensive to operate.
But really good to have in a pinch.
Our kitchen freezer went out on Tuesday. Thank goodness for the ol' basement fridge.
Of course, if I were to suggest to the wife (fanbase), that we use the basement freezer exclusively for the next couple of years, she (they) would bitch up a storm.
That would not be in my (MU's) best interest.
-
Respect the process. 8 years is a long time. And MUFNY has told us that the Bucks won't even be around in that amount of time, with multiple major professional sports teams owners as his source. So the new building will soon be the MU Arena anyway.
-
Old basement refrigerators are actually relatively expensive to operate.
Knot if its a SubZero, ai na?
-
You agree that we will never go back to the fridge. If we are never going back to the fridge, then we are never going back to the fridge. As you said......never.
If that is the case, it is NOT a tool of leverage. It does not give us any sort of negotiating power. We are not going back and everyone at the negotiating table knows that.
We are never going back because we are going to do our due diligence and the bucks won't let us go back because they also need us. But they also won't be able to charge us beyond whatever the magic number is where it is better for Marquette to go to the fridge. We absolutely would go back to the fridge (or some other option) if the Bucks decided to up the rent to a level Marquette couldn't afford. Unless you believe that Marquette has an unlimited source of money.
-
TAMU--You can't have it both ways. You can't say we will never go back, and in the same sentence say but we just might go back if the conditions present themselves.I'll say it one last time.....we are not going back to the fridge in the basement. Regardless how much a negotiating tool that you think that it is, we aren't going back. Period.
-
Folks I no stash der old fridge in da garage, doe, hey?
-
The ceiling is the roof.
-
Respect the process. 8 years is a long time. And MUFNY has told us that the Bucks won't even be around in that amount of time, with multiple major professional sports teams owners as his source. So the new building will soon be the MU Arena anyway.
I agree with this analysis.
-
TAMU--You can't have it both ways. You can't say we will never go back, and in the same sentence say but we just might go back if the conditions present themselves.I'll say it one last time.....we are not going back to the fridge in the basement. Regardless how much a negotiating tool that you think that it is, we aren't going back. Period.
I'm not trying to have it both ways, you just aren't reading. If the Bucks decide to set the price at a point Marquette can't afford, we aren't ending up there. Period. Fortunately, there are other options such as the Mecca and building on campus arena that they could look at. If the Bucks set a price that is so high that it would actually more beneficial to the university to build an on campus arena or go the Mecca than Marquette can tell them to lower the price or they walk. Because the Bucks also need us (and I think the need us more than they need to squeeze every dollar of us) I believe they would then lower the price, which is why I said we would never end up there.
-
A good lease, like any business contract, should benefit both parties.
The arena needs Marquette. Hosting 20 MU home games represents a lot of revenue — revenue that simply can't be replaced by more concerts, ice shows and monster truck rallies. (Non-basketball events currently fill maybe 1/4 of the calendar annually.)
And Marquette needs the arena. Playing games in a state-of-the-art NBA facility helps the program maximize ticket sales and national exposure. No other existing basketball arena in Milwaukee is comparable. Maintaining a relationship with the Bucks organization is beneficial, as well.
I expect that mutual need formed the basis for a fair agreement.
-
I would guess the Arena is less expensive to maintain and run than the Bradley Center would be.
The Arena is like the old refrigerator you stick in your garage and it runs for decades.
I liked that old arena.
-
The ceiling is the roof.
No
-
I'm not trying to have it both ways, you just aren't reading. If the Bucks decide to set the price at a point Marquette can't afford, we aren't ending up there. Period. Fortunately, there are other options such as the Mecca and building on campus arena that they could look at. If the Bucks set a price that is so high that it would actually more beneficial to the university to build an on campus arena or go the Mecca than Marquette can tell them to lower the price or they walk. Because the Bucks also need us (and I think the need us more than they need to squeeze every dollar of us) I believe they would then lower the price, which is why I said we would never end up there.
One last time TAMU--
As you have said several times we are NEVER going back to the fridge in the basement. Not going to happen.
You can keep adding caveats to this statement, but I agree with you that we are NEVER going back there. End of story.
When MU plays a season at the Panther Arena for whatever reasons you may believe please let me know. Until then, I will be watching MU play its games at the Silk.
-
One last time TAMU--
As you have said several times we are NEVER going back to the fridge in the basement. Not going to happen.
You can keep adding caveats to this statement, but I agree with you that we are NEVER going back there. End of story.
When MU plays a season at the Panther Arena for whatever reasons you may believe please let me know. Until then, I will be watching MU play its games at the Silk.
I believe TAMU's point is that there is always a point where a decision does not make economic sense.
What if at the end of the 7-year lease, the Bucks say, "Next year, we are going to charge you a million dollars per game for rent"? Would we be playing at the Silk? Hell, no. And we wouldn't have had time to build a new arena, so yes, we would be probably going back to the fridge.
Is a million dollars per game a ridiculous amount? Of course, but keep lowering that number until it isn't. There is a cutoff where it doesn't make sense to play at the new arena and we start looking at our alternatives. And the Bucks would be morons to charge that price.
But let's be clear. With the exception of love (in some cases), everything has a price. Everything.
-
That's fair. Then he never should have said NEVER.
I believe we will never go back.
TAMU also believes we will never go back.....but we could.
TAMU believes we will never ever go back......but we might.
TAMU believes we will never ever play at the area again.......but it's a possibility.
Maybe my definition of NEVER differs from others.
-
Knot if its a SubZero, ai na?
if your old basement fridge is a Sub Zero you are most likely in the minority
-
I don't get why people are so bent out of shape. It's called negotiating. Marquette wanted to lock in a sweetheart deal for 15 years. The Bucks owners initial offer of 3 years is just low balling. Compromise is reached at 7 years.
Marquette was probably caught off guard because negotiations were more cordial in the past. But that was an entirely different group. Now MU knows what to expect and can go in with a different mindset. I also expect MU to be more prepared for contingencies. For example, what is a worst case scenario where going to the Arena makes more sense than staying in the Real Chili-Foxconn-Silk Exotic-Ed's Bowlarama Stadium. Another scenario would be a hybrid model where MU plays 3-6 games at the new stadium and the rest at the Arena. Doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Negotiations for an extension probably take place in 5-6 years. MU has time to do there legwork.
-
Yes, anything could happen. The negotiators could be irrational actors. In a quantum universe, all that can happen does happen. I don't see how arguing potential realities is relevant to this discussion.
The primary economic law at play here is "supply and demand." The arena is the supply. Like a hotel, it has space and dates to sell. But the arena is worth nothing without demand. If nobody leases the space, the arena generates no income. That would be really bad when you just spent $500 million building the place.
Where those two forces intersect is the equilibrium price. That's Microeconomics 101 (one of my freshman year classes at Marquette). We may not know the details of the agreement. But basic economics suggests that MU reached a fair deal.
-
I think that a lot of the flavor of the comments in this thread are right, but then are just made too extreme. As of this negotiation, common sense would dictate that MU needed the space more than the Bucks needed MU to fill it. Worst case for MU to not get the space is pretty disastrous, for the dearth of other options mentioned. The worst case for the Bucks is the lost revenue of about 20-25 dates, when they only commit to filling about 50 out of 365 themselves (ignoring same day scheduling, etc.). But today, the arena is brand new, built with a ton of public money, and will have much more diverse revenue streams than the BC, and therefore is less immediately dependent on filling dates in the near term to maintain profitability - again, the impact of the public money cannot be overstated here. Advantage: Bucks. And sounds like they used it.
I agree that the wisdom of the Bucks not taking a longer view may be risky. Years from now, capital costs will go up to maintain the place, and filling the joint will become more important as the novelty wears off and the alternative revenue streams don't result in sufficient growth to keep the owners happy. But here's the thing - the Bucks owners aren't the type of guys that necessarily base their business decisions off 10-year projections. They're looking for a quicker burn, and they know a lot could change in that time. Maybe they sell the team (maybe to a buyer willing to keep them in MKE if Kohl's condition attaches to future sales). Maybe Marquette finds the money for that lusted after on campus arena. Who knows. But for the Bucks, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The backfire is if that actually spurs MU to pursue other options over the next half decade - but again, the Bucks directives may have been to not worry too much about that, because there's just too much uncertainty around what conditions will exist at that time, and whether the same people that stand to profit now will even be around then.
-
That's fair. Then he never should have said NEVER.
I believe we will never go back.
TAMU also believes we will never go back.....but we could.
TAMU believes we will never ever go back......but we might.
TAMU believes we will never ever play at the area again.......but it's a possibility.
Maybe my definition of NEVER differs from others.
So saying he believes we'll never go back but saying there could be some permutation of events that results in us going back is some how dumb? What absolutism world do you live in? Would it be better if he explained it in probabilities? If he said "100% of known scenarios result in 0% chance of going back, but the unknown scenarios have no probability for going back figured out" would that be better?
I agree, I don't believe we ever go back.....but there could absolutely be a scenario I can't think of that results in us going back.
(https://static3.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Not+to+be+a+creeper+or+anything+but+ive+seen+_11ea4a757843ce9c31d709ab58ef1cbb.jpg)
-
I don't get why people are so bent out of shape. It's called negotiating. Marquette wanted to lock in a sweetheart deal for 15 years. The Bucks owners initial offer of 3 years is just low balling. Compromise is reached at 7 years.
Marquette was probably caught off guard because negotiations were more cordial in the past. But that was an entirely different group. Now MU knows what to expect and can go in with a different mindset. I also expect MU to be more prepared for contingencies. For example, what is a worst case scenario where going to the Arena makes more sense than staying in the Real Chili-Foxconn-Silk Exotic-Ed's Bowlarama Stadium. Another scenario would be a hybrid model where MU plays 3-6 games at the new stadium and the rest at the Arena. Doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Negotiations for an extension probably take place in 5-6 years. MU has time to do there legwork.
How about winning more and the fans will pay more for the product? The improved seating and site lines will be much improved, fans will show up. MU can make more money per game, just maybe they will bring in some better teams as well. Minny, Northwestern, Duke why not, Wisco, Michigan or Michigan St., why not?
How about UCLA?
-
So saying he believes we'll never go back but saying there could be some permutation of events that results in us going back is some how dumb? What absolutism world do you live in? Would it be better if he explained it in probabilities? If he said "100% of known scenarios result in 0% chance of going back, but the unknown scenarios have no probability for going back figured out" would that be better?
I agree, I don't believe we ever go back.....but there could absolutely be a scenario I can't think of that results in us going back.
(https://static3.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Not+to+be+a+creeper+or+anything+but+ive+seen+_11ea4a757843ce9c31d709ab58ef1cbb.jpg)
Well said. Of course there are possible scenarios in which we would go back. The Bucks make the new place unaffordable in 7 years... we'd have to look at going back and if the money made sense, we would go back.
If the trend towards better home entertainment and VR takes off, and people stop attending games in the numbers that people currently do or costs exceed what people are willing to pay, of course we'd go back.
I for one do expect a trend away from people attending live sporting events in person. There may be a lot of overbuilt arenas and fields in 15 years. IN which case, going back to the Mecca or building a new Mecca with the admirals would be a possibility if the Bucks ask for an unreasonable amount for a half filled arena.
-
I don't think we will ever go back to the MECCA. I also don't believe Marquette will allow itself to be so easily pigeonholed into a deal like that in the future.
-
Well said. Of course there are possible scenarios in which we would go back. The Bucks make the new place unaffordable in 7 years... we'd have to look at going back and if the money made sense, we would go back.
If the trend towards better home entertainment and VR takes off, and people stop attending games in the numbers that people currently do or costs exceed what people are willing to pay, of course we'd go back.
I for one do expect a trend away from people attending live sporting events in person. There may be a lot of overbuilt arenas and fields in 15 years. IN which case, going back to the Mecca or building a new Mecca with the admirals would be a possibility if the Bucks ask for an unreasonable amount for a half filled arena.
If MU goes back to the Arena, that means the program is going backwards. The new owners are all about money, that is how they became so rich, they will not want
to lose 15 or 16 days of revenue from MU. They wanted the NCAA tournament to comeback, they got it. The building will be lucky to be used 100 times a year, so they would want another tenant. The Bucks will only use it at most 50-60 times a year. Then what?
-
So saying he believes we'll never go back but saying there could be some permutation of events that results in us going back is some how dumb? What absolutism world do you live in? Would it be better if he explained it in probabilities? If he said "100% of known scenarios result in 0% chance of going back, but the unknown scenarios have no probability for going back figured out" would that be better?
I agree, I don't believe we ever go back.....but there could absolutely be a scenario I can't think of that results in us going back.
(https://static3.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Not+to+be+a+creeper+or+anything+but+ive+seen+_11ea4a757843ce9c31d709ab58ef1cbb.jpg)
Then don't say we will NEVER go back. If you believe it's an option to go back at some point, then don't say we will never go back. Dumb? I don't know. I didn't say that.
-
How about winning more and the fans will pay more for the product? The improved seating and site lines will be much improved, fans will show up. MU can make more money per game, just maybe they will bring in some better teams as well. Minny, Northwestern, Duke why not, Wisco, Michigan or Michigan St., why not?
How about UCLA?
That's definitely a possibility. If MU becomes a perennially top 25 team, attendance will likely go up and higher ticket prices can be sustained. Become a perennial top 5-10 team and the effect is even greater.
Losing or treading water as a bubble team would have the opposite effect.
-
MU will have the last laugh when within 7 years MU is a perennial final four team with sold out attendance for every game. Anything less and Wojo should be fired!
-
I don't think we will ever go back to the MECCA. I also don't believe Marquette will allow itself to be so easily pigeonholed into a deal like that in the future.
Easily pigeonholed? How about we have few, if any, other options. In business, the Bucks held all the cards in this situation.
-
Easily pigeonholed? How about we have few, if any, other options. In business, the Bucks held all the cards in this situation.
I wasn't talking about this situation ?-(
-
Yes, that is what was determined. Which is why this conversation has been about the next round of negotiations that will happen sometime between now and the expiration of this lease. I would hope that Marquette uses that time to do its due diligence and put itself in a better position next time. Because as much as you try to ignore it, there is a magic number at which point it would be better for Marquette to play at the Mecca, or build its own stadium than it would be to play at the Silk Center. I have no idea what the number is but it is there.
I agree with this analysis.
-
MU will have the last laugh when within 7 years MU is a perennial final four team with sold out attendance for every game. Anything less and Wojo should be fired!
MY KINDA GUY!!!!!!!
-
Then don't say we will NEVER go back. If you believe it's an option to go back at some point, then don't say we will never go back. Dumb? I don't know. I didn't say that.
This conversation was never about if we would ever go back to the Mecca. It was brought up by others and then supported by me that in the next round of negotiations the Mecca would be a more viable option than it was this round and that could be used to help leverage for a better deal. You scoffed and said this was absurd. It was then explained to you repeatedly exactly how it could be used as leverage. You have yet to offer anything in response other than, "we are never going back" which we absolutely would if the Bucks set the price too high and were unwilling to negotiate. Fortunately, the Bucks also need us so if we threaten to walk and go the Mecca, than they will lower the price to something we can afford.
This is why I said we will never go back. Because as long as we have another option and the Bucks need another leasor, the Bucks will drop the price to something more reasonable for Marquette. This is called leverage. Which is what this conversation was about.
-
No--conversation was you saying "we will NEVER go back to the arena......but we might." That's it. Pretty simple.
You covering both sides. That's it.
I am done with this topic.
-
...would like to see the renewal options, if any, before getting too deep down the 'what's next?' path... they aren't disclosed anywhere, are they?
-
No--conversation was you saying "we will NEVER go back to the arena......but we might." That's it. Pretty simple.
You covering both sides. That's it.
I am done with this topic.
This conversation was never about if we would ever go back to the Mecca. It was brought up by others and then supported by me that in the next round of negotiations the Mecca would be a more viable option than it was this round and that could be used to help leverage for a better deal. You scoffed and said this was absurd. It was then explained to you repeatedly exactly how it could be used as leverage. You have yet to offer anything in response other than, "we are never going back" which we absolutely would if the Bucks set the price too high and were unwilling to negotiate. Fortunately, the Bucks also need us so if we threaten to walk and go the Mecca, than they will lower the price to something we can afford.
This is why I said we will never go back. Because as long as we have another option and the Bucks need another leasor, the Bucks will drop the price to something more reasonable for Marquette. This is called leverage. Which is what this conversation was about.
This is an unusal case where I see things the same way as TAMU. If we do not have a viable alternative, the Bucks price goes straight to a retail price.
In real life negotiations,The Bucks organization fancies themselves as consumer marketers. Because of their background, they understand that going to the " Old Refrigerator in the Garage" under certain circumstances can be a very viable option for us. For negotiation purposes the Arena can be positioned as a "Hinkele" type alternative for MU. There is enough tradition and age at the Arena for that to be a viable threat, as vintage and retro positioning are doing well. Remember, the Arena was actually a very good place to watch a game. Even theoretically, we could go to Miller Park and try to create a Carrier Dome type configuration. Yes I know that would be complicated, but for our purposes all it has to be is viable. Same goes for going to the Pottawatomie and doing a build to suit sale leaseback on the East End of Valley Fields. At today's cap rates for real estate, we could easily build a 150 to 200 million arena. We could even rename the team the Pottawatomie as part of that deal. Again this is far fetched on surface, but all it needs to have is a whiff of credibility to make a difference from a negotiation perspective . All it needs is one picture of an architect rendering and it becomes semi real.
The other elephant in the Bucks negotiating room is that MU with its attendance brings exposure to the Arena 18 times a year plus in the years we are able to get NCAA tournaments additional exposures for the Arena. The Bucks are an organization that is at the bottom of the NBA in both actual attendance and percentage attendance and they want every possible chance to convert the demand for basketball dollars to their organization. More importantly, The circumstance becomes a big win win if we are doing well and bringing fans to the new Arena and gaining exposure for the Naming Sponsor of the Arena on National TV. The Naming Sponsor has real skin in the game here and we are a big enough percentage of that part of the deal for it to have a real economic impact. The naming sponsor deal is not done yet and they are going to have a sophisticated marketing consultant on their team, and I can guarantee from past experience, the naming sponsor will insert an economic clause relating to our tenancy remaining in tact. If in fact the naming sponsor is someone like BMO Harris or Northwestern Mutual, MU has the connections to subtly influence that in our favor .
The soft underbelly of guys like the Bucks ownership and management is that they tend to be too Clever by a Half. We have to always be in a position to exploit that weakness. I think this negotiating experience opened our teams eyes to that.
-
No--conversation was you saying "we will NEVER go back to the arena......but we might." That's it. Pretty simple.
You covering both sides. That's it.
I am done with this topic.
No. This was the start of the conversation.
More importantly the old fridge is our leverage to scare the sheet out of these NYC bullies!
The idea of us never going back didn't come up until later. And again, I think we are never going back because the Bucks also need us but the fact that we could go back and would if the Bucks refused to drop the price will help us get a better price in the future. So while I don't think the Old Fridge will "scare the sheet" of the Bucks, it is a form of leverage.
-
Mecca had its time and place. If you believe the University is commited to its basketball program and wants to be "big league," the thought of returning isn't worth the keyboard its typed on.
-
Mecca had its time and place. If you believe the University is commited to its basketball program and wants to be "big league," the thought of returning isn't worth the keyboard its typed on.
Amen. That is, was, and never will be an option, and everyone knows it.
-
If MU goes back to the Arena, that means the program is going backwards.
Absolutely. That's why it would never happen.
If we go back, we have bigger problems than where to play.
-
Odds:
Staying at new arena beyond 7 years: 85%
Building new arena near campus: 10%
Going back to Arena: 5%
And the only reason the 5% happens is if something catastrophic happens on a Dukietian level to the Marquette program.
-
Amen. That is, was, and never will be an option, and everyone knows it.
It's absolutely an option. Its a bad one, but because it is there it keeps the Bucks from charging whatever they want.
-
Odds:
Staying at new arena beyond 7 years: 85%
Building new arena near campus: 10%
Going back to Arena: 5%
And the only reason the 5% happens is if something catastrophic happens on a Dukietian level to the Marquette program.
Nit picking here. Those are not odds.
-
I agree that we will never go back to the Fridge.
-
It's absolutely an option. Its a bad one, but because it is there it keeps the Bucks from charging whatever they want.
Ya got dis all wrong, just sayin'. Let da next 7 years play out. It'll become much clearer as we go forward, hey?
-
I am done with this topic.
I think we are never going back because I don't believe the Bucks will let us walk. They would rather lower the asking price (assuming their first price was unreasonably high) than see us take our business to the Mecca. But because the option exists it keeps the Bucks from charging a price that is so high that it would be more beneficial for Marquette to play basketball at the Mecca.
This really isn't that hard.
-
Sorry couldn't let you get away with both sides of the argument..again.
Please answer one question. Then I will be done with you on this one.
As you have told us...we are NEVER going back to the MECCA.
If we are NEVER going back to the MECCA how can going back to the MECCA be a viable option?
That is where I'm stuck.
Please answer that one for me.
-
We won't go back to the Mecca because a solution will come before that. If the Bucks go crazy and the lease offer makes the Mecca more feasible, we will go there. The odds of the Bucks and MU negotiating in the window that makes the Mecca feasible is nill.
-
Nuthin evr changs in 7 yrs. let us figure it all out naow!
-
Respect da process, man, ai na?
-
Nuthin evr changs in 7 yrs. let us figure it all out naow!
In today's business world, 7 years is an eternity.
-
Sorry couldn't let you get away with both sides of the argument..again.
Please answer one question. Then I will be done with you on this one.
As you have told us...we are NEVER going back to the MECCA.
If we are NEVER going back to the MECCA how can going back to the MECCA be a viable option?
That is where I'm stuck.
Please answer that one for me.
I've answered this 8 times at this point. Been the same answer every time.
I think we are never going back to the Mecca because the Bucks also need us to fill those dates and will negotiate with us until a deal is met that is acceptable to both sides. In addition, I know that because the Mecca (or building an on campus arena) is there, the Bucks can't set the price at a point that is so high that it would actually be better for Marquette to go with a different option. Because if they did and refused to negotiate down, Marquette would walk. Now again, because the Bucks also need us to fill those dates more than they need to squeeze every last dollar out of his (at least I think that's true) it is my belief that the Bucks and Marquette will always be able to find a deal where the price at the new stadium doesn't exceed whatever the magic number is that would make it better for Marquette to go with a different option.....which is called leverage. Which is what this conversation was about when you scoffed at the idea of the Mecca being used as leverage.
To put it in shorter terms, I think we are never going back because I don't think the Bucks are stupid. But if the Bucks end up being stupid Marquette would go back. I can't imagine a world where the Bucks are that stupid. (Cue the jokes about trading Dirk Nowitzki or whatever just went on with their GM search)
-
Dodged it again.
If you say we are never ever playing at the MECCA ever again........how is playing at the MECCA an absolute viable option??
-
Dodged it again.
If you say we are never ever playing at the MECCA ever again........how is playing at the MECCA an absolute viable option??
I dodged nothing. It's all right there in the post above.
The Mecca is a viable option. Not a good one, but a viable one. It is a basketball arena close to campus that can hold enough people. I don't think we ever end up back there because both Marquette and the Bucks want Marquette to play in the new arena. In the end, the Bucks will always offer a deal that makes playing at the new stadium the best option for Marquette. That means offering a price that isn't so high that Marquette is forced to take its second choice.
-
If it's a viable option, we could play there.
If we are never, ever going to play there, it's not a viable option. Ainner?
In this thread, you have sided with both of these distinct opinions.
-
If it's a viable option, we could play there.
If we are never, ever going to play there, it's not a viable option. Ainner?
In this thread, you have sided with both of these distinct opinions.
They are not distinct opinions. Why would you think they are?
I think the Mecca is a viable option.
I don't think it is an option we will ever have to use.
These are two opinions that don't contradict each other in the slightest.
Is it your belief that I can only call an option viable if I think it is the option that is going to happen?
-
This is a weird internet fight.
-
They are not distinct opinions. Why would you think they are?
I think the Mecca is a viable option.
I don't think it is an option we will ever have to use.
These are two opinions that don't contradict each other in the slightest.
Is it your belief that I can only call an option viable if I think it is the option that is going to happen?
Never=non-viable.
"I don't think"is quite different from "never" and you certainly know that.
But, you can keep trying to redefine viability.
-
This is a weird internet fight.
I agree with this analysis.
-
Question .. this discussion is all about the negotiations between the Bucks and MU.
When looking at the ownership section (admittedly, of Wikipedia) .. the owner is the Wisconsin Center District.
Why weren't the lease negotiations with WCD? Or are the presuppositions here incorrect..
-
Question .. this discussion is all about the negotiations between the Bucks and MU.
When looking at the ownership section (admittedly, of Wikipedia) .. the owner is the Wisconsin Center District.
Why weren't the lease negotiations with WCD? Or are the presuppositions here incorrect..
The Bucks manage the facility.
-
Never=non-viable.
"I don't think"is quite different from "never" and you certainly know that.
Neither of these things are true and you certainly know that.
I agreed we are never going back to the Mecca. But NOT because its not a viable option. Its because its in the best interest of both the Bucks and Marquette that we play in the new stadium. When something is in the best interest of both sides, a deal is going to get worked out.
I mean I would get if you disagreed about the Mecca being a viable option. I would disagree but that's an understandable line of thought. This whole you can't think an option is viable if you don't think its what will end up happening is really odd. I think the United States declaring war on North Korea is a viable option but I also think it will never happen. I think leaving my job to be a stay at home dad is a viable option but I also think it will never happen (in the future, the mamajuana on the honeymoon did not bless us with triplets as RC83 foretold).
However, this is the wisest thing that has been said in this thread:
This is a weird internet fight.
So I'm going to bow out. Feel free to have the last word.
-
Your vision of an appropriate arena has a lot to do with your vision of the program.
If you don't see us regaining a status as a elite level college program, then sure the MECCA and the Panther Arena is fine. Sooner we get back there the better.
If you believe we need an on-campus arena, I'm sure Dr. Lovell would love to take your $80 million and a check for the location.
But, if you believe we're going to again be an elite program with lots of wins, excitement and a couple more natchamps, then the Milwaukee Bucks arena is where we need to play.
It's that simple! We aint going back.
-
But, if you believe we're going to again be an elite program with lots of wins, excitement and a couple more natchamps, then the Milwaukee Bucks arena is where we need to play.
In the past 40 years, since we last won the National Title, only one team has won a title that played the majority of their games in a NBA arena, the 1984 Georgetown Hoyas. Villanova has two titles in that span but play most of their games at the Pavilion. There is no connection nor even correlation between playing in a NBA arena and winning a national title.
-
#donedeal
Can we cut Bronson Koenig immediately?
Sorry it took so long, glow.
http://www.nba.com/bucks/news/bucks-request-waivers-bronson-koenig
-
Couldn't have happened to a better guy ;D
-
In the past 40 years, since we last won the National Title, only one team has won a title that played the majority of their games in a NBA arena, the 1984 Georgetown Hoyas. Villanova has two titles in that span but play most of their games at the Pavilion. There is no connection nor even correlation between playing in a NBA arena and winning a national title.
There really aren't many college teams that play a majority of their games in a NBA arena. Marquette, Georgetown and a few years back Memphis moved into the FedExForum. I think that's it.
St. John's only played 7 games at MSG.