Bradley Center Naming

[Dr. Blackheart]

or the B-M center.
crappy name, I know.

So Minne has The Hump. Chicago has The Cell.  And Milwaukee will have The Dump?

[warriorchick]

Could be a lot worse.

Regards,
O.Co Coliseum

You know it, brother.

Sincerely,

The University of Phoenix Stadium

[seakm4]

And Milwaukee will have The Dump?

still better than the kfc yum center.

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

still better than the kfc yum center.

Exclamation point!

[Skatastrophy]

Nobody hates BMO

[klyrish]

Dang.  I was hoping the Johnson Sausage company would get the rights.   

The Johnson Sausage Center would have been an amazing name. Or Johnson Saucenter

[MarcusMU2015]

So Jane Pettit donated $93 million to the construction of the arena and have it named the Bradley Center. BMO Harris commits $1 million plus for six years, giving them naming rights to the BC? Something seems wrong here...

[4everwarriors]

Let's just take the M out and call it the BO Center.

Nah, call it the BM

[dgies9156]

Dang.  I was hoping the Johnson Sausage company would get the rights.   

Or maybe the Kimberly Clark toilet paper company

OK scoop fans, how about a contest for the 10 products you could name the Bradley Center after..........

[Dr. Blackheart]

Or maybe the Kimberly Clark toilet paper company

OK scoop fans, how about a contest for the 10 products you could name the Bradley Center after..........

The lower bowl would be sponsored by Depends brand.

Kotex would get the naming rights to the basket pads.  The basket shot clocks would count down from 30.

[AZWarrior]

The Johnson Sausage Center would have been an amazing name. Or Johnson Saucenter

Doin' the Big Johnson tonight!   

[warriorchick]

The lower bowl would be sponsored by Depends brand.

Kotex would get the naming rights to the basket pads.  The basket shot clocks would count down from 30.

I think you mean 28.

[The Lens]

So Jane Pettit donated $93 million to the construction of the arena and have it named the Bradley Center. BMO Harris commits $1 million plus for six years, giving them naming rights to the BC? Something seems wrong here...

What if the Bucks got a new arena the minute they suggested it and this season the BC was scheduled for demolition?  Then what would Jane Pettit have for her donation? A vacant lot? 

[martyconlonontherun]

So Jane Pettit donated $93 million to the construction of the arena and have it named the Bradley Center. BMO Harris commits $1 million plus for six years, giving them naming rights to the BC? Something seems wrong here...

I'm sure the Pettit's aren't thrilled but they also wouldn't be happy if the stadium rotted with no tenants. Also, it was a GIFT, not a marketing strategy for the Pettit Family. Yeah, they should get respect for what they did but I'm sure they understand the grim state of a 15-year old stadium built for hockey w/o a NHL team.



As for BMO, $3 million dollars a year to show up on a giant sign outside the main stadium downtown, the publicity from this announcement (see MJS, multiple online message boards like this, and talk radio), every ticket and signage in the stadium to Bucks, MU, Concerts, and AHL events (which I would guess would be in the millions of attendees), and, if the Bucks somehow become competitive in 3-6 years, free spots on National television.

[Hards Alumni]

I'm sure the Pettit's aren't thrilled but they also wouldn't be happy if the stadium rotted with no tenants. Also, it was a GIFT, not a marketing strategy for the Pettit Family. Yeah, they should get respect for what they did but I'm sure they understand the grim state of a 15-year old stadium built for hockey w/o a NHL team.



As for BMO, $3 million dollars a year to show up on a giant sign outside the main stadium downtown, the publicity from this announcement (see MJS, multiple online message boards like this, and talk radio), every ticket and signage in the stadium to Bucks, MU, Concerts, and AHL events (which I would guess would be in the millions of attendees), and, if the Bucks somehow become competitive in 3-6 years, free spots on National television.

fwiw the building is already 23 years old.

I agree with the points you made though.

[dgies9156]

OK, let's get real about this thing.

It's great that a bank not in Milwaukee stepped up and contributed part of its marketing/advertising budget to a community institution. For all that the Pettits did for Milwaukee -- and for our basketball program -- the BMO Harris contribution complements what they did.

I still don't get the need for a new arena. Yeah, it's nice to keep up with the Joneses, or in this case, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc. But I don't see what it adds to either the Bucks or Marquette, other than the ability to market themselves as playing in a shiny new arena.

The Brewers show kind of what can happen. In the first year Miller Park (aka County II) opened, the Brewers drew three million people, largely to gawk at the roof and see what a shine new ballpark looked like. After that first year, ownership has known that to sustain interest in the team, the product on the field would have to improve. In short, the stadium was good for a one-year pop in revenue, but then things had to change.

Look, if the Brewers were great, they could play in the old County Stadium and still draw 3 million.

The Bucks are the same. Sure, we build a new arena in downtown Milwaukee and for the first year, Marquette and the Bucks probably will sell out every game. Then what? For Marquette, if Buzz's magic continues, we'll draw about 12,000 for non-BEast, non-Badger games and fill the place for most of the BEast games.

For the Bucks, who knows? Put a crappy product on the floor and there will be no material difference. Use it the way the Brewers did to create a whole new beginning and perhaps there's a major improvement. Perhaps....

Either way, does the incremental return to Marquette, the Bucks and indirectly, the City and County of Milwaukee justify a $400 million or more investment to replace a perfectly fine, very nice arena that was a magnanimous gift of some very special people? I doubt on a present value basis, we're even close to a break-even analysis.

[mu_hilltopper]

I think the Bucks' attendance would go down with a new stadium. (Unless their on-court product improved muchly.)

There is one all-important fact every public official and proponent of a new stadium should repeat before each meeting on the subject: 

THE PURPOSE OF A NEW STADIUM IS TO EXTRACT MORE CASH FROM FANS' WALLETS.

It's not to shorten the lines in the bathrooms. It's not to give you 6 different pizza toppings at the concessions.  It's not to give you better sight lines. 

It's to get more cash out of fans pockets, plain and simple.  All the other crap is just window-dressing to get public money, like oh dear god, the poor fans are suffering with non-caramel popcorn during games.

Look back to County Stadium .. in 2000, the "Fan Cost Index" (4 tickets, 2 beers, 4 sodas, 4 dogs, parking, 2 programs) was $100.68 .. 2001 Miller Park opened, it jumped to $130 (it's now $171).

So .. apply that to a new Bucks' arena .. suddenly that already expensive $46 average Bucks ticket is now $60.   

I think a 30% cost increase would push a ton of people to enjoy the game on their 50" TV at home for $0, and all you'd have left is the business groups willing to dump that kind of coin to entertain their clients prior to hitting Hey Hey Ricky's on State.   

[The Lens]

Hilltopper raise a ton of great points.  It's why Miller Park + Winning has made the Brewers successful.  Selling out all 53,000 for 81 dates at County Stadium would not have been enough.  Miller Park upped the average fan spend.  I laugh when I complain to myself that the souvenir shop at home plate is not as good as LF.  County Stadium had pop up tents with pennants and foam fingers!

To his point about 50" TV's, for this reason I hope Michael Hunt's talk of a 23,000 seat arena is just talk.  Sure it might help with a few concerts but I would rather see a 15,000 seat hoops-centric arena that makes people want to come to a game. 

[AZWarrior]

Hey Hey Ricky's on State.   

Ah memories.  And that was one of my favorite T-shirts, BTW....   

[dgies9156]

I think the Bucks' attendance would go down with a new stadium. (Unless their on-court product improved muchly.)

THE PURPOSE OF A NEW STADIUM IS TO EXTRACT MORE CASH FROM FANS' WALLETS.

It's to get more cash out of fans pockets, plain and simple.  All the other crap is just window-dressing to get public money, like oh dear god, the poor fans are suffering with non-caramel popcorn during games.

On this score, Hilltopper and I agree. The Chicago Bears play in the NFL's second largest market (remember, there is no team in Los Angeles) with the League's smallest capacity stadium. But half the seats are premium seats and the skyboxes as a percentage of total seats are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Nonetheless, here's the question for all you business majors. We are going to assume a $400 million capital expenditure over three years beginning in 2014. By 2017, the cash flows and let's assume the Hilltopper scenario and, for the sake of the argument, average spend per game increases 15% for the potentially fewer people who actually go to the game. Further, lets assume a blended debt/equity discount rate of between 8% and 10%.

Can anyone who didn't flunk out of business school and enter public service suggest this scenario makes any reasonable economic sense?

For those of you who did enter public service, does it make sense to spend $400.0 million of the taxpayers' money on a white elephant for a team that's likely not leaving? Go tell the teachers and firefighters and policemen that their pensions went to fund debt service on a new stadium!

Seems like Milwaukee is betting on the ability of the Milwaukee Bucks to draft and coach well.

[martyconlonontherun]

On this score, Hilltopper and I agree. The Chicago Bears play in the NFL's second largest market (remember, there is no team in Los Angeles) with the League's smallest capacity stadium. But half the seats are premium seats and the skyboxes as a percentage of total seats are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Nonetheless, here's the question for all you business majors. We are going to assume a $400 million capital expenditure over three years beginning in 2014. By 2017, the cash flows and let's assume the Hilltopper scenario and, for the sake of the argument, average spend per game increases 15% for the potentially fewer people who actually go to the game. Further, lets assume a blended debt/equity discount rate of between 8% and 10%.

Can anyone who didn't flunk out of business school and enter public service suggest this scenario makes any reasonable economic sense?

For those of you who did enter public service, does it make sense to spend $400.0 million of the taxpayers' money on a white elephant for a team that's likely not leaving? Go tell the teachers and firefighters and policemen that their pensions went to fund debt service on a new stadium!

Seems like Milwaukee is betting on the ability of the Milwaukee Bucks to draft and coach well.

A team not likely to leave? If it wasn't for Kohl this team would be gone in the next two years. Now Kohl is getting up there is age and willing to sell the team. When he does, the new owner will want a stadium or will bolt.

There's two things being debated:

Do the Bucks NEED a new stadium? Absolutely. They will not be here in 5-10 years without one. The cash flow just isn't there with the BC even when the Bucks are good. There will be other cities looking to attract a new team...Seattle, Vegas, and, a long shot, Stern is really pushing Europe over the next decade.


Is it worth it for Milwaukee to build a stadium? This is extremely debatable since all the benefits aren't really measurable. Will revenue to bars, shops and restaurants around the BC go way down without the Bucks? How much is free name placement on ESPN every night worth it? Does a city become more marketable if people are familiar with the city name due to sports teams? Would Milwaukee become a Tulsa/Alburueque second-level type of city without the Bucks/Brewers?

Another area to look at is income tax. How much does milwaukee/WI get just from the players salaries?

[Hards Alumni]

A team not likely to leave? If it wasn't for Kohl this team would be gone in the next two years. Now Kohl is getting up there is age and willing to sell the team. When he does, the new owner will want a stadium or will bolt.

There's two things being debated:

Do the Bucks NEED a new stadium? Absolutely. They will not be here in 5-10 years without one. The cash flow just isn't there with the BC even when the Bucks are good. There will be other cities looking to attract a new team...Seattle, Vegas, and, a long shot, Stern is really pushing Europe over the next decade.


Is it worth it for Milwaukee to build a stadium? This is extremely debatable since all the benefits aren't really measurable. Will revenue to bars, shops and restaurants around the BC go way down without the Bucks? How much is free name placement on ESPN every night worth it? Does a city become more marketable if people are familiar with the city name due to sports teams? Would Milwaukee become a Tulsa/Alburueque second-level type of city without the Bucks/Brewers?

Another area to look at is income tax. How much does milwaukee/WI get just from the players salaries?

Well said, this is about how I feel about this whole situation.

[dgies9156]

A team not likely to leave? If it wasn't for Kohl this team would be gone in the next two years. Now Kohl is getting up there is age and willing to sell the team. When he does, the new owner will want a stadium or will bolt.

I've raised this question before on Scoop and respectfully disagree with you. Of all the cities you mention, only Seattle is in a position to build an arena and attract a team. If I owned a basketball team with the option of being in Seattle or Milwaukee, well, sorry Milwaukee.

But the reality is that there are situations far worse than Milwaukee. Charlotte, for one. Second NBA team in that city and virtually no fan support. There's a reason the Hornets left for New Orleans!

Charlotte will be in a moving van headed west long before Milwaukee.

OK, now lets look at other options. As long as Vegas' economy is bad and Nevada continues to allow sports gambling, don't even think about any professional league moving to Las Vegas. So that leaves Nashville among cities that are possible and, heck, that city almost lost the Predators a few years back because they couldn't put enough backsides in seats. Nashville is not an upgrade over Milwaukee by any means.

So that leaves us with NBA drop-outs wanting a team back. Like, say Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Already at least one-time losers with the NBA or the ABA. None of them are more attractive options than Milwaukee and they're all fading markets.

Albuquerque anyone?  Yeah right....!

[martyconlonontherun]

But the reality is that there are situations far worse than Milwaukee. Charlotte, for one. Second NBA team in that city and virtually no fan support. There's a reason the Hornets left for New Orleans!

Charlotte will be in a moving van headed west long before Milwaukee.

Charlotte has a new stadium, the number 1 pick, and are courting Sloan and SVG. They will be fine and be there for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Hornets_(NBA)
The Hornets left because the owner was the opposite of Kohl and cared more about money than keeping the team in the city. Shinn moved because he got a brand-new stadium even though there was plenty of support in Charlotte. Why do you think Charlotte was so quick to get a new team/stadium?

[MUfan12]

Don't dismiss KC as a potential destination. The Sprint Center is one of the best basketball arenas I've been to. It's NBA ready.