Bradley Center / MU

[GGGG]

One of the main reasons for bulding a new Arena is that the Bucks would get revenue from things like restaurants and gift shops, like the Brewers do from Fridays, and the Packers do from Curly's Pub.

Regarding suites, I don't think it's a lack of suites, a lot of them are empty anyway.  I think it's more of a lack of demand for suites.  If they really needed more suites, they could rip out all the upper-deck seats in the north endzone and build suites all the way up with an attached bar/restaurant in there somewhere.

What would be so expensive about reconfiguring the risers in the lower bowl?  Put in a tier of "club seats" on the west side with access to the courtside bar.  What are these other "needs" that the Bucks have?

The suites may be empty for certain events, but they are all sold out and there is demand for more of them.  And tearing up any building to add them, and to reconfigure the lower bowl, would be almost as expensive as building a new arena PLUS it wouldn't disrupt a season.  You can't very well renovate the BC when there are events happening there 12 months a year.  It's not as though you could even add a bunch of boxes to the upper level in the months between basketball seasons.

[Litehouse]

Does the state own the BC?  I thought it was independently owned by the BC Board.  Also, I remember hearing that MU was offered the MECCA for free when the BC was built, but declined, for many of the same reasons being brought up now.  However, it might be different if the Bucks were no longer around.

[GGGG]

The Bradley Center is owned by the "Bradley Center Sports and Entertainment Corporation," which is a seperate legal entity created by the state to oversee its operation.  The problem is that all of its revenue is within the Center and its parking structures.  They don't have anyway to generate revenue outside of the Center itself.

However, they cannot "sell" the Center without an act of the legislature, and there is no way MU would want to own it - it's a frickin' black hole.

[Litehouse]

The suites may be empty for certain events, but they are all sold out and there is demand for more of them.  And tearing up any building to add them, and to reconfigure the lower bowl, would be almost as expensive as building a new arena PLUS it wouldn't disrupt a season.  You can't very well renovate the BC when there are events happening there 12 months a year.  It's not as though you could even add a bunch of boxes to the upper level in the months between basketball seasons.

The lost revenue during renovation is a good point, but I still can't believe the renovation would cost as much as a new Arena (maybe $50M vs. $300M+).  Ultimately, none of us here would really know the numbers unless we went out and got quotes, and I suppose it's kind of like debating whether it's worth spending $20,000 to remodel your kitchen, when you'd really rather buy a new house.

[GGGG]

Well, renovation was the option chosen by the Oracle Arena in Oakland.  It cost $121 Million (15 years ago), which was basically stripping it down to its walls.  It took just over a year...Golden State played in San Jose for that year.

They could probably build a new one for about $300 Million.  And I have no idea where the Bucks, Warriors and Admirals would play for a year - the Arena??? 

[Hards Alumni]

Well, renovation was the option chosen by the Oracle Arena in Oakland.  It cost $121 Million (15 years ago), which was basically stripping it down to its walls.  It took just over a year...Golden State played in San Jose for that year.

They could probably build a new one for about $300 Million.  And I have no idea where the Bucks, Warriors and Admirals would play for a year - the Arena??? 

Probably the Kohl Hole... except MU would play at the Arena.

[eroc830]

Well, renovation was the option chosen by the Oracle Arena in Oakland.  It cost $121 Million (15 years ago), which was basically stripping it down to its walls.  It took just over a year...Golden State played in San Jose for that year.

They could probably build a new one for about $300 Million.  And I have no idea where the Bucks, Warriors and Admirals would play for a year - the Arena??? 

I would guess that MU would see a slight increse in season tickets from pure basketball fans and corporations if the Bucks left, so that would be good.  But then you would still have less going into the BC from the Bucks.  I don't think the state would have paid for a new scoreboard if it was just MU and the Admirals and more costs for upkeep would be difficult to handle with less revenue during Bucks games.

$121 million 15 years ago is probably $500 million today.  Based on what I heard about Lambeau the cost to renevate in 2003 would have doubled if they did it in 2008.  I am no expert but I bet it would cost $600 million to build a new arena and half that to gut the BC and remodel.  Big problem with the BC is that its footprint is tiny.  It is not like the outer walls are huge and provide room inside to add different areas.  So there is no real structure left to expand into, you need to widen the footprint which is expensive.

[GGGG]

It would cost much less than $600M.  The KFC Yum Center cost $238M and just opened last year.  Now, that has 72 suites, while a new Milwaukee area would need have more than that (it has 68 right now.)  It would also need "club level" seating.  But that would not double the cost by any means.

[eroc830]

It would cost much less than $600M.  The KFC Yum Center cost $238M and just opened last year.  Now, that has 72 suites, while a new Milwaukee area would need have more than that (it has 68 right now.)  It would also need "club level" seating.  But that would not double the cost by any means.

You could be right.  I guess OKC newer area was in the $225m range but the Magic new arena in Orlando was almost $500m and top of the line.  So if built today I guess $250 would be the low end and $500 the high.  But you also have to remember that its not being built today, we are probably looking 5-10 years in the future.  So I doulbt when the dirt gets moved it could be done for under $300m but $600m could be realistic.

Another problem with the BC suites are where they are.  Stacked suites at center court sell better than ones in the corner.  Why you see Club Cambria in the end zone sinces they can't sell suites there.

[Skitch]

And then what do you do with the other 345 nights a year?

Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?

[Coleman]

Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?

That was the assumption I was under as well.

If MU owned, it wouldn't just be used for MU events. Still probably not worth it, but I was in no way suggesting it only be used for MU.

[Brewtown Andy]

Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?

So what do you do with the other 200 nights a year?

[GGGG]

Don't you think MU would lease the arena out to the Admirals, Mustangs, Wave (not sure if they still play at the BC) and concerts like is currently done?

Yes...but since the Bradley Center is not making a great deal of money now, has deferred maintenance issues, and MU is in the education business...not the running-a-sports-arena business, what is the point?  Just rent the damn thing.

[Niv Berkowitz]

MU is not in the professional-sports-arena-owning business. If it was something on-campus, that's a whole 'nuther story.

Personally, who cares if the Bucks leave? It wouldn't hurt Marquette nearly as much as the city of Milwaukee as a whole. Why, you say? Because we would still be in the friggin' Big East and would have nationally televised games throughout the COLLEGE basketball season. Pittsburgh doesn't have an NBA team and they can recruit. College football teams don't have pro-teams sharing arena space and that doesn't hurt.

Just because the two teams play in the same space doesn't make either one dependent on the other.

If the Bucks left, as a guy that doesn't care about the NBA, it'd suck for Milwaukee but I could care less. And if you think Wes Matthews or Steve Novak not attending what, two, three additional practices a year makes a bit of difference you are insane. Local guys will stay here in the off-season if they want to. The NBA ain't keeping Novak and Wes around. It's the fact they ARE local guys and are here.

But as far as MU, the arena is a nice place to play and doesn't do anything to NOT attract kids. The place would need to be made, maybe, a couple thousand seats smaller or they'd have to do something to improve the college atmosphere there. If it stays operated by the state, they won't take away seats on account of concerts and other stuff.

As a season ticket holder, I can tell you that I wouldn't want to see my prices increased by 25-50% just so the friggin' Bucks stay in town and get their new arena. That's my bottom line and I'm guessing, when you vote/think w/your pocket book, a lot of people on this post would agree.

The BC is just fine for MU...with or without the Bucks.

[eroc830]

I was at the political and business leaders forum at MU Law this afternoon and the question about a new arena was brought up.  All the parties agreed that the Bucks are import and a new arena would be necessary to keep them here long term.  But, you could tell that they didn't think the support was there right now to build a new area.  That could change in 5 years.  Tom Barrett said that the he and the city has always been supportive for the idea of a new facility and behind the Bucks, but that everyone would have to pitch in.  Tim Sheehy the head of the Milwaukee Metro Association of Commerce said that the city was in the exact same place with Miller Park and somehow that happened, so he saw it happening again.  He also suggested continuing the Miller Park sales tax once it expires and using that to build a new area.  That is something I am for but I am in the minority.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Milwaukee can be such a nice, sensible city, but sometimes it can be too sensible for its own good.  This is going to be a long, ugly process just like the Miller Park issue was.  I can't imagine that if the State Legislature from 1996 could transport themselves to 2011, that the idea of adopting a 0.1% sales tax for Miller Park would be considered controversial at all. 

If Milwaukee wants to be a big league city, this is the game that has to be played.

As for how this impacts Marquette, my feeling is that the only benefit we take from the Bradley Center is that it is an "NBA Arena."  If it is no longer an "NBA Arena," it is too big, too quiet, and too multi-purpose for Marquette's needs.

I get where you are going, but there are also a lot of people in this country that feel public funds for sports arenas is out of hand.  Here in L.A. we don't have a football team as a result of the absolute insistence that any football stadium that is built does not rides on the shoulders of taxpayers.  Now, has Los Angeles suffered because it has no football?  I'm sure some will say yes....I'll bet USC would argue hell no.  That's why I think Marquette could come out gangbusters on this.

I've read over the years here and on the other board how absolutely critical it is to have the Bucks in town so they can hob nob with our players, have those NBA dreams rub off on them, Summer pickup games, etc, etc.  I guess I pause and wonder how Louisville, without a NBA team somehow manages to survive without sharing a NBA team.  Or Gonzaga or Purdue or Wisconsin or fill in most of the top 50 teams in the country that don't share a city with a NBA team.  Or why Minnesota, TCU, SMU, Utah aren't better because they do have NBA teams in their city. 

I lived in Milwaukee for over a decade.  I've also lived in Cleveland and other similarly sized cities that have what I'll call a "complex" that they aren't legitimate cities if God forbid a team leaves.  I honestly think that feeling is shared only by a small number for folks.  Seattle is no less a major city without the Sonics.  Los Angeles is no less a major city without a NFL team (and if we get one back, we're no better either except to a small minority of people).  Louisville, San Diego, Anaheim, Tampa, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, etc....are they somehow lesser cities because they don't have a NBA team?  Most people in this country would pick living in San Diego over 70% of other cities as just one example.

[TheDOC816]

that is with Milwaukee being one of the few cities that has both pro basketball and baseball.

What? how about Chicago, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Denver, LA, Atlanta, Boston, New York, Philly, Detroit, Cleveland, Miami, Washington DC, Oakland\San Fran, Toronto, Milwaukee.  That's like half the NBA right there.

[Hards Alumni]

I lived in Milwaukee for over a decade.  I've also lived in Cleveland and other similarly sized cities that have what I'll call a "complex" that they aren't legitimate cities if God forbid a team leaves.  I honestly think that feeling is shared only by a small number for folks.  Seattle is no less a major city without the Sonics.  Los Angeles is no less a major city without a NFL team (and if we get one back, we're no better either except to a small minority of people).  Louisville, San Diego, Anaheim, Tampa, Kansas City, Nashville, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, etc....are they somehow lesser cities because they don't have a NBA team?  Most people in this country would pick living in San Diego over 70% of other cities as just one example.

I'll disagree with you here.  LA and most of the West Coast doesn't have the desire to have sports teams like the midwest.  In the midwest during fall and winter there is a LOT less to do.  It isn't a complex, its the fact that if the Bucks leave there is just one less thing to do/watch/talk about in town.  It isn't as if Milwaukee residents can walk to the beach in January to have a little fun.

[Mr. Nielsen]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/122207299.html

[Litehouse]

I think a brand new arena for the Bucks would help MU.  I think the Bucks leaving town would also help MU.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'll disagree with you here.  LA and most of the West Coast doesn't have the desire to have sports teams like the midwest.  In the midwest during fall and winter there is a LOT less to do.  It isn't a complex, its the fact that if the Bucks leave there is just one less thing to do/watch/talk about in town.  It isn't as if Milwaukee residents can walk to the beach in January to have a little fun.

Fair point Hards, there is a lot more to do in warm weather climates but there were certainly a number of cities I mentioned that aren't exactly tropical that are still major cities sans a basketball team.  Seattle, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc, all do just fine without the NBA.  Now, some have the NHL and maybe that's why St. Louis is a pretty good hockey town and a great baseball town. 

I can understand as a resident that if the Bucks leave or threaten to leave, it looks doom and gloom but the reality is that it's not.  Kohl is retiring now so he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected for threatening to leave and pull more money from the public to support his team and a building.  Would I love a new building for Marquette?  Sure.  Do I think the Bucks leaving makes Marquette basketball more attractive?  Yes, to a point.  The surveys I conducted while working there showed very little crossover of Bucks and MU season ticket holders or general interest.  Same in my current role where we see two different fan bases (i.e. people that buy college basketball packages do not overlap much with NBA purchased packages) and that's largely why last month I stated they are two different games.  The goal is still the same, put the ball in the hoop, but the atmosphere, the product, the participants, the rules are very different and attract different fan groups.  The million question is if the Bucks leave, would some of these diehard NBA fans that weren't giving MU a look now decide to give the boys a try.  Some certainly will to get their hoops fix, even if it's a different type of hoops fix.  The question is how many.

At the end of the day, I doubt the Bucks leave but Kohl's retirement doesn't help that notion. He could sell the team and not worry about that legacy any longer.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

I have not lived lived in Milwaukee for quite a few years and was just wondering IF the Bucks left would there be a threat to the bars/restaurants etc. in the area staying afloat.....or are they pretty self sufficient without the 40 or more Bucks games a year?

[StillAWarrior]

Well damn...now that the Roseboro thread is closed, how the hell am I supposed to turn this thread into a Crean versus Buzz pissing match?!

[Henry Sugar]

Well damn...now that the Roseboro thread is closed, how the hell am I supposed to turn this thread into a Crean versus Buzz pissing match?!

The Bradley Center hasn't had the largest crowd in Wisconsin to watch a basketball game since Crean left.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/122207299.html

BC has a "shelf life of another 5 or 6 years".....are the walls about to collapse?  Have termites invaded?   I get the need to push his agenda, but that approach isn't going to fly with a number of people.  I have no doubt most folks want a shiny new toy and MU, Milwaukee,the Bucks, etc can benefit from that. There is, of course, a trade off.  Who pays for it, what other service \  interest group is put aside as a result, etc.  The pols will have to fight that out.