Bradley Center / MU

[Henry Sugar]

I'm pretty sure that most studies show negligible results for the immediate direct economic impact of spectator sports. 

http://firat.academia.edu/SebahattinDevecioglu/Papers/411779/Financing_Professional_Sports_Facilities

There is very little case to be made for public financing of stadiums, and yet the public continues to finance stadiums.  For example, the public has contributed 83% of the money for the last seven arenas ($1.54B out of $1.93B)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/how-the-sacramento-kings-_b_836757.html

[Benny B]

Is hockey really "wildly popular" in Wisconsin?  I'm not trying to be snide, it's an actual question.  Perhaps it's just because I don't follow it at all that I have no idea.

Just a quick clarification - I said widely popular, not wildly popular.  Nevertheless...

Relatively speaking, yes - hockey is widely popular in Wisconsin.  Let's be clear that I'm not talking NHL or the Admirals, but I'm talking about the sport in general.  Further, when I say widely popular, I'm not implying that everyone owns a pair of skates or goes to the rink on the weekends, I'm simply saying that the amount of hockey being played in Wisconsin - at all levels - is much greater than it is in most other places in the US.  I forget the stats from USA Hockey, but IIRC Minnesota & Wisconsin are typically #1 and #2 when it comes to registered amateur hockey players on a per capita basis (e.g. California has more hockey players than Wisconsin, but the percentage of population that plays hockey is much smaller).

For instance, look at some southern cities with NHL teams: Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Tampa Bay... I don't think anyone would argue against the statement that hockey is much more popular in Wisconsin than it is in any of those places.

[Skatastrophy]

Soccer is widely popular.  It's probably the most often played organized sport in SE Wisconsin for youngsters.  That doesn't translate into butts in the seats for College or Pro soccer in Milwaukee.

[Benny B]

There is more to the story of the reason the North Stars leaving the state.  Namely sexual harassment charges vs. the owner by female employees.  He had/wanted to get out of town.  The Wild sold out every game (375 or so) since they started playing.  The sellout streak ended in the middle of this season...hardly irrelevant.  By the way not in any way a Wild fan here, just stating facts.

Yes there is more to the story (aside: as I mowed the lawn last night while wearing my - no lie - North Stars 1991 Stanley Cup Finals t-shirt, I thought to myself that Normy's wife just plain wanted the heck out of Minnesota and didn't give two sh*#$ that he was harassin' the ladies.  In any event, I think the lawsuit's effect on the relocation is grossly overestimated; IMO the impetus for the move was 99% because the North Stars were stuck with the Met Center and other cities were throwing brand new facilities at Norm to entice him to move).

The bottom line is that pro-hockey left Minnesota - the state where hockey is king - and didn't return until the NHL was irrelevant (I did not - nor would I ever - say hockey in Minnesota is/was irrelevant).  Although, perhaps the irrelevancy claim is biased; I am not a fan of Gary Bettman and haven't followed the NHL since the North Stars went south.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

I am not a fan of Gary Bettman and haven't followed the NHL since the North Stars went south.

I agree...not a fan of Bettman at all....I moved here after the team moved and I have more than a couple of friends here that either stopped following the NHL or moved on to following a new team and are still fans of that team and not the Wild (one of the worst names for a team in all of sports).

[Hards Alumni]

I'm pretty sure that most studies show negligible results for the immediate direct economic impact of spectator sports. 

http://firat.academia.edu/SebahattinDevecioglu/Papers/411779/Financing_Professional_Sports_Facilities

There is very little case to be made for public financing of stadiums, and yet the public continues to finance stadiums.  For example, the public has contributed 83% of the money for the last seven arenas ($1.54B out of $1.93B)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/how-the-sacramento-kings-_b_836757.html

Sadly for me, I read the first paper... and it mostly discusses the effects that 'mega events' have on cities.  There is little evidence in the paper to suggest that a new arena has a negative effect on the local economy other than the authors preposition.  He does list sources in journals and books, but since I am sitting at work, I can't readily evaluate them...  Additionally, I take issue with his claim that (I am paraphrasing) if there weren't a sports team in town the funds used by sports fans (as entertainment spending money) would be used on other local events like the theater, and restaurants, thereby decreasing local revenues.  Really?  Is he implying that theater attenders and live sports event attendees have a strong interest cross section?  Where is the evidence of this?  I just find that to be highly improbable.

I am talking strictly Bucks basketball.

Regarding the article in the HuffPo... I realize that the most effective way to keep a team's revenue high is to have a good team.  Unfortunately, that can't be a reality for every team in the league... since there needs to be winners and losers every year.  The article then discusses that an alternative to having a successful team to gain revenue is to build a new arena.  

I guess I don't see the point that the article is trying to make other than a successful team makes more money...  Frankly, I could have told you that before reading it, HS.  What is next, an article telling me that a team in a larger market has a better chance at selling tickets than a smaller market team? :-P

[oldwarrior81]

here's a study done by Memphis regarding the economic impact of an NBA franchise.  They show about $223 million annually.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/04/net-gain-for-memphis/

[Henry Sugar]

here's a study done by Memphis regarding the economic impact of an NBA franchise.  They show about $223 million annually.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/04/net-gain-for-memphis/

"However, Gnuschke said that a large part of the spending from team and arena operations comes from Memphians -- resulting in a shifting of local spending patterns rather than new money being brought into the community."

[Henry Sugar]

Sadly for me, I read the first paper... and it mostly discusses the effects that 'mega events' have on cities.  There is little evidence in the paper to suggest that a new arena has a negative effect on the local economy other than the authors preposition.  He does list sources in journals and books, but since I am sitting at work, I can't readily evaluate them...  Additionally, I take issue with his claim that (I am paraphrasing) if there weren't a sports team in town the funds used by sports fans (as entertainment spending money) would be used on other local events like the theater, and restaurants, thereby decreasing local revenues.  Really?  Is he implying that theater attenders and live sports event attendees have a strong interest cross section?  Where is the evidence of this?  I just find that to be highly improbable.

I am talking strictly Bucks basketball.

Regarding the article in the HuffPo... I realize that the most effective way to keep a team's revenue high is to have a good team.  Unfortunately, that can't be a reality for every team in the league... since there needs to be winners and losers every year.  The article then discusses that an alternative to having a successful team to gain revenue is to build a new arena.  

I guess I don't see the point that the article is trying to make other than a successful team makes more money...  Frankly, I could have told you that before reading it, HS.  What is next, an article telling me that a team in a larger market has a better chance at selling tickets than a smaller market team? :-P

/tangent from discussion of the Bucks

The first article's primary criticisms on the estimate of economic impact come from:

Substitution - People spend money on ballgames instead of spending money on other things.
Crowding out - People who go to ballgames make it so that other people don't want to go out
Income multiplier - Much of the money that is contributed to the local economy (say a $10M salary) does not stay local.

My point is that there are a lot of studies out there that show negligible net impact on the community for public financing of stadiums.  Instead of $200M for a new stadium, why not raise taxes and spend money on infrastructure development?  The multiplier there is a lot higher.  Why not raise taxes and cut the deficit?  Why not avoid raising taxes altogether?

The second article I linked just to reference the dollar values.  However, do you really think that the seven metro areas generated $1.5B in public value? 

[Hards Alumni]

"However, Gnuschke said that a large part of the spending from team and arena operations comes from Memphians -- resulting in a shifting of local spending patterns rather than new money being brought into the community."

Again, I just see this type of statement as faulty.  Does he know that this (or at least some) isn't new spending?  Did other sectors report losses in revenue since the arena went up?

I understand the concept of substitution, but it seems that these analysts are applying it too broadly.

My point is that there are a lot of studies out there that show negligible net impact on the community for public financing of stadiums.  Instead of $200M for a new stadium, why not raise taxes and spend money on infrastructure development?  The multiplier there is a lot higher.  Why not raise taxes and cut the deficit?  Why not avoid raising taxes altogether?

I don't think that if the main reason that cities are building arena/stadiums is to create revenue.  I'm not sure the idea is to make money.  I think that people are willing to (the free market would agree with me here) to publicly fund arenas/stadiums to keep teams in town as a source of entertainment.  I can agree with you that the building of these complexes doesn't guarentee economic success to the city, but saying that they have a negative effect is highly suspect.

Either way, sports teams tend to bring a certain amount of happiness and pride to the city/state they are in... which should be considered as well.

[Ari Gold]

You're having to bring in MLS teams to make part of your argument.    I'm fine with the other cities you've mentioned....they're fine cities and don't suffer without them.  I get that it would take Milwaukee down to one major league team, but the it's the NBA for crying out loud....it's one step below WWE.      When the league goes full blown lockout next year and at least half the season is wasted, let's see how Milwaukee does.  I predict all will survive.

When is the stadium tax supposed to run it's course?  2015?

In only one of those cities is the MLS the 2nd team. Columbus. Their average home attendance is just under 10k.

The stadium tax is going to be continued through 2016 - 2018 actually. In 2007 the plan was to end the tax is 2014. the tax was started in 1996.

I think in this case we should look at the Brewers. They're a better team than they were in the 90s and since they built Miller Park. more people go to games. They've drawn over 2m fans every year since 2004, twice over 3m. 1983 was the only year the brewers broke 2m fans at County stadium.

I think that the same would hold true for the Bucks. A better arena and a commitment to winning made by Kohl and the management would attract more people to the games. And since there is a downtown arena that may provide some economic impact to the area bars and restaurants.

Fact is, especially in the east, they bucks could be a perennial playoff team, especially with a good draft pick or two and Michael Redd's contract off their payroll
---
Warrior07
tell me though. Honestly how is it living in a city without any sports teams? If at the very least sports are something to talk about and garner a little interest.

The BC brings in entertainment and basketball. I think the Bucks are an important part of Milwaukee and I'd love to see them stay. And this is coming from someone who saw 3 Bucks games this year, possibly equal to the amount of Bucks games I've seen in 10 years prior.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Ari, I didn't say Milwaukee shouldn't have any sports teams. I was referring to the Bucks. Surely you would agree that the economic impact, whatever it is, of the Brewers is substantially larger than that of the Bucks? It doesn't help that the Buck's season is during the time of the year when Wisconsin residents, as much if not more than anywhere else in the country, want to just stay in.

I agree that it can be fun going to a Buck's game. But the economic climate of downtown is already attrocious with the Bucks there. I don't see how a new arena building for the Bucks (if it was only for the Bucks/Admirals/MU) would change the surrounding area that much for a sustained period of time. Let's say 8 restaurants or bars exist now that would not be financially profitable if they left. Do we continue the 5-county sales tax to support these 8 restaurants, if the potential economic benefit of the Bucks is one of the main reasons for keeping them around?

[Hards Alumni]

Ari, I didn't say Milwaukee shouldn't have any sports teams. I was referring to the Bucks. Surely you would agree that the economic impact, whatever it is, of the Brewers is substantially larger than that of the Bucks? It doesn't help that the Buck's season is during the time of the year when Wisconsin residents, as much if not more than anywhere else in the country, want to just stay in.

I agree that it can be fun going to a Buck's game. But the economic climate of downtown is already attrocious with the Bucks there. I don't see how a new arena building for the Bucks (if it was only for the Bucks/Admirals/MU) would change the surrounding area that much for a sustained period of time. Let's say 8 restaurants or bars exist now that would not be financially profitable if they left. Do we continue the 5-county sales tax to support these 8 restaurants, if the potential economic benefit of the Bucks is one of the main reasons for keeping them around?

Straw man hypothetical? 

Do you live in Milwaukee?  Have you been downtown recently?  It is hardly a ghost town.  Go to Detroit, now that is desolate.

[Henry Sugar]

As for the substitution argument, I will trust the results from a peer-reviewed journal and a study that is consistent with the peer-reviewed journal.  You can trust your feelings.  Neither of us can prove or disprove how the analysis was done.

Also, I've never said that the impact is negative.  Just that it's negligible.  I happen to think taxes are fine and government plays an important role in our lives.  I also don't think it's a smart use of taxes or government funds to support paying for a new stadium.

Either way, sports teams tend to bring a certain amount of happiness and pride to the city/state they are in... which should be considered as well.

This is probably the strongest argument in favor of public financing for stadiums.

Despite the theoretical arguments, let me also add that I totally support public financing for the renovation of the BC or a new stadium.  First, I don't live in Milwaukee, so they aren't my taxes.  Second, Marquette will get to (somewhat) free-ride on any renovations.  Third, I think the long-term downside for Marquette is a lot higher if there is not an improvement.  So in a battle of my principles vs reality, go Marquette.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I didn't say it was a ghost town, though would you disagree that the area west of the river is attrocious? Just look at park east. The fact that demand for that area has been so low that nothing has gone up in years tells you a lot about the economic viability and interest in that area. Wouldn't surprise me if Wisconsin Avenue had a 50% commercial vacancy at the sidewalk level west of the river. If the Bucks bring so much economic benefit to an area, why is that area -- at best -- equal with the entire rest of downtown/Milwaukee: 3rd ward, Water, North Ave, etc.?

Is that a yes for you -- if eight restaurants are financially profitable today due to the Bradley Center, we should keep the Bradley Center? I am curious to see what your breaking point would be. There's no "wrong" answer. I would just prefer a much higher breaking point in terms of jobs and economic impact.

[Ari Gold]

Ari, I didn't say Milwaukee shouldn't have any sports teams. I was referring to the Bucks. Surely you would agree that the economic impact, whatever it is, of the Brewers is substantially larger than that of the Bucks? It doesn't help that the Buck's season is during the time of the year when Wisconsin residents, as much if not more than anywhere else in the country, want to just stay in.

I agree that it can be fun going to a Buck's game. But the economic climate of downtown is already attrocious with the Bucks there. I don't see how a new arena building for the Bucks (if it was only for the Bucks/Admirals/MU) would change the surrounding area that much for a sustained period of time. Let's say 8 restaurants or bars exist now that would not be financially profitable if they left. Do we continue the 5-county sales tax to support these 8 restaurants, if the potential economic benefit of the Bucks is one of the main reasons for keeping them around?

I know what you're saying, but my point is even one or two teams can really make a difference.
Your economic debate is very hard to pin down. Yes the Brewers in direct comparison to the Bucks play more games for more people at a larger facility so there is more of a county/area wide impact but the Bucks (and other teams) play games at the Bradley center, much closer where you're trying to make your economic impact argument. You also seem to be arguing that either the Bucks have no economic impact, or have a negative one because downtown is so atrocious. I disagree completely. It may not be the best, its only two blocks but there is a reason those two blocks are as close as they are to the Bradley Center. A new arena (preferably a single one w/convention center attached) would bring in more people and more of them would go to Bars and restaurants in that area.

You're right, the weather is an issue, but the bucks still draw 15k per game (41 games) Marquette averages 16k in 17 games and the admirals average 6k per game (40 games) and their seasons are all played November-March/April. You have to concede that 98 games plus events really helps all the bars and restaurants around the Bradley Center area.

you know the park east is a different beast. The County Board has tacked on requirements for that land development that make it virtually impossible for anyone to want to develop that. Remove those barriers to entry and you'll have a more prosperous neighborhood.

Furthermore I think you're really undercutting the development of the 3rd Ward and 5th Wards in Milwaukee, as well as the entire east side (not just North ave). And you can't blame Wisconsin Avenue's troubles on the Bradely center entirely. You have to chalk some of that up to the mismanagement and failure of the Shops and Grand Avenue as well as the grossly underused convention center.

[PJDunn]

I was in Milwaukee last month for the first time in 2 years.  The downtown area horrid.  Once you get past old world 3rd (which is in decline) you basically have a wasteland.  It may be better than Detroit, but it ain't good.  To be honest, it was kind of a sad experience.  On the flip side, our campus looks good and 'Tosa is a treat.

[Hards Alumni]

I didn't say it was a ghost town, though would you disagree that the area west of the river is attrocious? Just look at park east. The fact that demand for that area has been so low that nothing has gone up in years tells you a lot about the economic viability and interest in that area. Wouldn't surprise me if Wisconsin Avenue had a 50% commercial vacancy at the sidewalk level west of the river. If the Bucks bring so much economic benefit to an area, why is that area -- at best -- equal with the entire rest of downtown/Milwaukee: 3rd ward, Water, North Ave, etc.?

Is that a yes for you -- if eight restaurants are financially profitable today due to the Bradley Center, we should keep the Bradley Center? I am curious to see what your breaking point would be. There's no "wrong" answer. I would just prefer a much higher breaking point in terms of jobs and economic impact.

The area west of the river isn't all that bad.  Old 3rd street is a decent little area.  I'm not sure there are really as many empty buildings as you think... unless I am missing a lot of them.  As for Park East, perhaps the city just wants too much for the Park East land (I'm not sure) (oh, Ari answered this for me!).  I would be very surprised if Wisconsin ave has a 50% vacancy rate... I don't live in Milwaukee, but I go there often enough.  Does anyone else want to weigh in on this?

As for the substitution argument, I will trust the results from a peer-reviewed journal and a study that is consistent with the peer-reviewed journal.  You can trust your feelings.  Neither of us can prove or disprove how the analysis was done.

Also, I've never said that the impact is negative.  Just that it's negligible.  I happen to think taxes are fine and government plays an important role in our lives.  I also don't think it's a smart use of taxes or government funds to support paying for a new stadium..

I didn't catch where he was citing figures from his substitution argument in his paper.  It just seemed like he was creating what he thought would happen, and I, in turn, did the same.  I am probably wrong.

You didn't say the impact was negative, the author said it has been in some cases.

Whatever the case, I think a lot of people would be very sad to see the Bucks move on.  And the best way to keep them in town is to build a new arena using public funds by continuing the 0.1% sales tax.

[GGGG]

One of the dumbest decisions Milwaukee ever made was to esstentially turn down Potowanami's request to place their casino in the Riverwest area.  Could you imagine how cool an entertainment complex would be that included the new area, the casino, and the restaurants and hotels that go along with that?

Instead, the casino is in the butt ugly Menomonee Valley where it doesn't do the city any bit of good at all.

[Hards Alumni]

One of the dumbest decisions Milwaukee ever made was to esstentially turn down Potowanami's request to place their casino in the Riverwest area.  Could you imagine how cool an entertainment complex would be that included the new area, the casino, and the restaurants and hotels that go along with that?

Instead, the casino is in the butt ugly Menomonee Valley where it doesn't do the city any bit of good at all.

+1.  Plus there would probably be room for the Harley museum somewhere downtown as well...

[GGGG]

And Miller Park.  But of course we can't do that because tailgating is TOO IMPORTANT!!!!  God forbid we actually act like every other major league city in the world and pry open our wallets to get a brat and a beer.

[Hards Alumni]

Park East area development flash...

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/parkeast/Map/PEblocks.swf

[NYWarrior]

And Miller Park.  But of course we can't do that because tailgating is TOO IMPORTANT!!!!  God forbid we actually act like every other major league city in the world and pry open our wallets to get a brat and a beer.

Not putting Miller Park in the downtown area -- a colossal mistake.  The current stadium site would be ideally suited for mixed use development while the city would have reaped the economic benefits of a stadium nearer downtown.  Such a shame.

Brats rule, apparently

[Hards Alumni]

And Miller Park.  But of course we can't do that because tailgating is TOO IMPORTANT!!!!  God forbid we actually act like every other major league city in the world and pry open our wallets to get a brat and a beer.

Honestly, I am fine with Miller Park where it is.  Tailgating is a major part of the experience of Miller Park, and I think there would be far fewer fans at games if they couldn't tailgate.

Just my 2c.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm pretty sure that most studies show negligible results for the immediate direct economic impact of spectator sports. 

http://firat.academia.edu/SebahattinDevecioglu/Papers/411779/Financing_Professional_Sports_Facilities

There is very little case to be made for public financing of stadiums, and yet the public continues to finance stadiums.  For example, the public has contributed 83% of the money for the last seven arenas ($1.54B out of $1.93B)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/how-the-sacramento-kings-_b_836757.html

I agree.  So much of it is done as a result of emotion or pols feeling like their city is second rate as a result, so they throw millions to keep the team there so they aren't blamed for them leaving.  Meanwhile the owners know this full well and sit back laughing at the absurdity of it all.