New Stadium Imminent?

[JoBo2756]

I didn't see this discussed elsewhere... apologies if it's already been mentioned, but the Bucks deal includes $100M from the new owners and $100M from Herb Kohl (I think) for a new stadium to replace the Bradley Center in the next 4-6 years.

Here's an excerpt from an ESPN article that Chicos mentioned in another post.

• Silver said he hopes an owners' vote on the sale of the Milwaukee Bucks from Herb Kohl to hedge fund magnates Wes Edens and Marc Lasry can happen within a month. Edens and Lasry (who owns a small percentage of the Brooklyn Nets) agreed to pay $550 million for the Bucks plus $100 million toward the construction of a new arena this week. As part of the deal, Kohl agreed to gift $100 million to the city of Milwaukee for the arena.

The Bucks' current lease at the Bradley Center expires in 2017, and $200 million to $300 million more probably will need to be raised for a new arena, likely with some form of public financing. It isn't clear where that money will come from, but Silver said he was confident that the Bucks would not relocate.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10803355/adam-silver-says-pushing-back-nba-age-limit-top-priority

[🏀]

Yeah, I didn't see this discussed anywhere either...

[BCHoopster]

How about Marquette throwing some money into the new arena as well?  There is no reason they can not put $25M or more into the pot, helps the city, why not!  They could bet a discounted
amount for the usage for the next 20 or 30 years as well to get some of that money back.

[Blackhat]

Where would they put the new stadium?   


The valley?

[JoBo2756]

Prob downtown. There is space near the Bradley Center (a big empty lot near the exit from I-43) right? Or is that developed now?

Although it would be kinda weird to have 3 stadiums adjacent to each other.

[drewm88]

How about Marquette throwing some money into the new arena as well?  There is no reason they can not put $25M or more into the pot, helps the city, why not!  

I'm not privy to inner knowledge of the finances of Marquette, but I don't know where you think they have $25 million lying around for something like this. Budgets are tight at just about every school in the country, and Marquette announced layoffs 2 months ago.

[Let's Go Warriors]

I didn't see this discussed elsewhere... apologies if it's already been mentioned, but the Bucks deal includes $100M from the new owners and $100M from Herb Kohl (I think) for a new stadium to replace the Bradley Center in the next 4-6 years.

Here's an excerpt from an ESPN article that Chicos mentioned in another post.

• Silver said he hopes an owners' vote on the sale of the Milwaukee Bucks from Herb Kohl to hedge fund magnates Wes Edens and Marc Lasry can happen within a month. Edens and Lasry (who owns a small percentage of the Brooklyn Nets) agreed to pay $550 million for the Bucks plus $100 million toward the construction of a new arena this week. As part of the deal, Kohl agreed to gift $100 million to the city of Milwaukee for the arena.

The Bucks' current lease at the Bradley Center expires in 2017, and $200 million to $300 million more probably will need to be raised for a new arena, likely with some form of public financing. It isn't clear where that money will come from, but Silver said he was confident that the Bucks would not relocate.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10803355/adam-silver-says-pushing-back-nba-age-limit-top-priority

Shouldn't that read "gift back to the new ownership group"?

[nathanziarek]

Where would they put the new stadium? 

The old rumor was in the big open lot 2 blocks north of the BC....

[Niv Berkowitz]

Bradley Center gets torn down after the new one is built. It has too.

[Marquette_g]

Where would they put the new stadium?   


The valley?

Three sites appear most likely and in this order:

1. North of current BC in the former Park East space.  Pros:  Undeveloped so it is easy; keeps much of the infrastructure (parking, traffic flow) of the BC relevant; cheapest area to develop.  Cons:  Pushes facility further away from bars, restaurants and hotels; remains single use facility as won't be a part of a larger development project.

2. Tear down arena and MKE theater.  Pros:  Even more centrally located within the city; likely can be incorporated with convention center to create a more functional and larger space.  Cons:  More expensive to develop; Interests of more groups need to be considered

3.  Valley:  Pro: Potawatomi are far more likely to make a significant contribution if the venue is within walking distance of their properties  Con:  Doesn't really stimulate the city, it stimulates the casino; really hurts downtown business; Puts the NBA more in bed with gambling than they have been previously

[Let's Go Warriors]

Three sites appear most likely and in this order:

1. North of current BC in the former Park East space.  Pros:  Undeveloped so it is easy; keeps much of the infrastructure (parking, traffic flow) of the BC relevant; cheapest area to develop.  Cons:  Pushes facility further away from bars, restaurants and hotels; remains single use facility as won't be a part of a larger development project.

2. Tear down arena and MKE theater.  Pros:  Even more centrally located within the city; likely can be incorporated with convention center to create a more functional and larger space.  Cons:  More expensive to develop; Interests of more groups need to be considered

3.  Valley:  Pro: Potawatomi are far more likely to make a significant contribution if the venue is within walking distance of their properties  Con:  Doesn't really stimulate the city, it stimulates the casino; really hurts downtown business; Puts the NBA more in bed with gambling than they have been previously

Why?

[Marquette_g]

Why?

I should have said, it doesn't fit within the current development that is already there.  The convention center and the new BC would be quite a distance apart and wouldn't be "connected."  That site can certainly be used to build a large complex, but it would be independent of what currently exists.

[mu_hilltopper]

I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none.  I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..

Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium.    Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.

The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise.   When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.

[Let's Go Warriors]

I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none.  I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..

Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium.    Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.

The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise.   When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.

U r probably right in regards to public financing.    But how much does bmo pay for rights at the bc?  They could try to add Harley and the potowatami to get the lions shAre privaty funded.  I agree tho
Public money is a non starter unless some local politicians are interested in being recalled ...

[GGGG]

I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none.  I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..

Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium.    Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.

The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise.   When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.

I don't think anything happens before this November's elections anyway.  They have 9-12 months to get their ducks in a row to at least try something.

[Wojo'sMojo]

I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none.  I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..

Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium.    Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.

The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise.   When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.

The Bucks have more than a few fans. The casual Bucks fan has tired of this poorly run franchise. With new blood in ownership and hopefully front office, they could get this thing turned around. Giannis has the potential to be a star and is very marketable. Having a top 4 draft choice this year is also going to be huge. If the Bucks put a quality product on the court, the fans will come out to support them.

The Bucks leaving Milwaukee would be terrible news for Marquette. Is Marquette going to pay to keep the Bradley Center relevant? If the Bucks move, we are losing a big help with where Marquette is able to play its home games. We eventually would turn into a mid major I feel.

[77ncaachamps]

Why?

My question too.

There are avenues off of 43 and it looks like it's still accessible from Water and the surrounding bars/restaurants.

I looked around that projected plot and saw lots of blight that could benefit from a new arena.

It's time Milwaukee reinvested in itself. There's only so much good moving out into the hinterland and creating new communities can do for a city.

[MU82]

Bradley Center gets torn down after the new one is built. It has too.

Why? I think Milwaukee should just keep building arenas all in the same area until there is one for every citizen.

Collect 'em all, kids!

[BCHoopster]

I'm not privy to inner knowledge of the finances of Marquette, but I don't know where you think they have $25 million lying around for something like this. Budgets are tight at just about every school in the country, and Marquette announced layoffs 2 months ago.

So the Bucks leave, where does MU play then, the Mecca, MU would really be going the wrong direction, the building needs to much work the next 10 years per Marc Marotta, like 100M, play
at the Al?  The Al cost $31M to build, how much would be a new stadium on campus cost MU if they did it themselves?  $200M or more so why not help out?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I would peg the possibility of public financing at slim and none.  I realize "important people" have been trying to lay the groundwork for this for years .. but ..

Many communities outside of MKE has pre-emptively passed "laws" saying NO to any form of taxation for a new stadium.    Not to mention the constant Wisconsin-wide governmental budget cutting that's occurred over the past 3+ years.

The Bucks have few fans in Milwaukee to begin with, as it's just a loser franchise.   When the Bucks new owners lay down the ultimatum (and they certainly will) that they'll have to move the Bucks without a new arena, they will hear crickets, minus some Downtown business owners.

For me, it's just about risk vs reward.

Best case scenario: the Bucks become the new Spurs, and have tremendous success for 15+ years. They become a true anchor in the community. The building is packed every game, the team wins multiple championships, there is an influx of cash and jobs thanks to the new "Bucks Economy". (restaurants, parking, hotels, merchandise, television rights, radio broadcasting, advertising, etc.)

Worst case scenario: The Bucks continue to be an unsuccessful franchise, and after a handful of years, the "newness" wears off the arena, and the Bucks are back to attracting 14K per game, and the new owners start looking for more revenue streams (again). "We need to remodel the atrium to host more events on non-gamedays (again). We want to host weddings and corporate functions when the team is out of town. We need more revenue to compete."

Now, if you had $300-500million to bet, which scenario is more likely?

Also, even if they do accomplish the best case scenario, you have to figure the team is going to want another new building in 25 years. That's $15+ million per year in infrastructure the city is giving away, and at the end of it, the building really has no value. It'll be torn down or abandoned when the next one goes up.

- Do we think the Bucks generate more than 15 million per year in economic impact? (I really don't know the answer).
- What about the opportunity cost?
- Could that money be used to help stimulate growth in other businesses?

[bilsu]

Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.

[drewm88]

So the Bucks leave, where does MU play then, the Mecca, MU would really be going the wrong direction, the building needs to much work the next 10 years per Marc Marotta, like 100M, play
at the Al?  The Al cost $31M to build, how much would be a new stadium on campus cost MU if they did it themselves?  $200M or more so why not help out?

I understand your point, but The Al was part of a major fundraising campaign. I don't see how MU has the cash to make a donation large enough to make a difference without a campaign like that, and I doubt that's a priority for the next campaign.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.

Well, to be fair to pro-sports franchises, after they get their new facilities, they generally stay for a while (figure 15-20 years). I can't think of a team that received a taxpayer stadium and then bolted quickly. Maybe one of the hockey franchises down south?

[Marquette_g]

Worse case senario is new area is built and Bucks move to another city.

I'm sure the deal would require a 20-year lease at minimum

[humanlung]

If I remember correctly, new ownership was the catalyst for the Brewer's resurgence.  Once the Selig's were out and a new outlook (and $$$) were involved, it totally changed the public's view (and support) of the franchise.

Kohl is a HORRIBLE meddler in the operations of the team.  He makes the late George Steinbrenner look like a disinterested party.  Once he is gone, my guess it's addition by subtraction and an improved product on the court.