Milwaukee Bucks 2011/2012

[Baldkin]

I think it is pretty darn unlikely that a new NBA arena would be financed in a similar fashion to Miller Park. The Miller Park tax barely got passed; and finances on all levels have only gotten worse since that time. Unless Kohl plans on putting in way more than I expect him to I anticipate this being a long shot. Doesn't the Miller Park tax have more than a couple years left anyways?

 

They could try to model the Vikings stadium plan and tax the casinos; I have no idea how that would go over in WI though.

 

To say it barely got passed is an understatement. It took a guy going against his constituents, and being killed in his next election to get it passed.

 

I've all but given up hope for the Bucks. They've brought back a coach who has no idea who is talented on his team, and a GM who is GMing for his job, which means future success can be sacrificed for a run at the 8 seed.

 

After they ALREADY did that this year, when NINE teams were competing in the east (and they finished 9th).

 

`

[paul253]

The Bucks need two things to succeed. A new arena and a new GM. On its face alone I couldn't care less if the Bucks leave. I've been to one game in the past 7 years and rarely follow them. But Milwaukee as a whole needs them. A lot of businesses in the area benefit from them and it would hard for them if the Bucks leave. Plus, I mean it's gotta do something for the tourism aspect of this city doesn't it??? The Brewers were in the same boat. Without Miller Park they'd be gone by now. The decision that was made was the right decision.

 

Like I said before, if Milwaukee could get an NHL team I'd say goodbye to the Bucks tomorrow. I think and NHL team would succeed much more in this city than an NBA team because the NHL seems like more of a blue collar sport and Milwaukee is definitely more of a blue collar town. But that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon. Actually, I doubt it will ever happen as long the new team would have to play in the BC. So if the only options are new arena and a 0.1% sales tax increase or no NBA team, I'd rather take the sales tax and new arena.

 

Now if only Kohl would do something about that GM.

[bullox]

I think and NHL team would succeed much more in this city than an NBA team because the NHL seems like more of a blue collar sport and Milwaukee is definitely more of a blue collar town

 

Milwaukee, like many cities, is a winning town. Bring a winner and it will succeed.

[homer]

I think and NHL team would succeed much more in this city than an NBA team because the NHL seems like more of a blue collar sport and Milwaukee is definitely more of a blue collar town

 

Milwaukee, like many cities, is a winning town. Bring a winner and it will succeed.

 

This. Bucks were 12th in the league in attendance in 2001.

[paul253]

Milwaukee, like many cities, is a winning town. Bring a winner and it will succeed./i]

 

A new arena will definitely help the Bucks succeed and sustain the success. I think much like Miller Park, a new arena will fill seats, bring in revenue, and help bring in free agents. It will buy the Bucks a year or two before they have to win or risk losing fans. I guess unlike the Brewers though, fans could probably see the new arena without seeing the Bucks. I assume either Marquette or the Admirals or both will also play at the new arena.

[davego]

A new arena near the lake would be an intersting idea.

[foamboy1]

There is much work to be done in order to get a new arena, but I believe it's likely to occur. The public discussion is just beginning. Nothing will happen until the recall of the Governor is settled. I'm not sure which politician would be better for a new stadium. In the end, I'm not sure it's going to matter.

 

Kohl has already indicated a willingness to contribute. That helps move the process forward. The question will be how to obtain the public funding needed for this arena? If you can believe it - this is already in place.

 

There are two options. First, merge the Bradley Center with the Wisconsin Center District, which manages the US Cellular Arena and the smaller Milwaukee Theater (as well as the Convention Center). The Wisconsin Center District already possesses taxing authority and could raise the public funds. The bigger issue is clash of egos between those in charge of the Bradley Center and WI Center District. With the current leadership (Marotta and Gimbel), I can see a deal get done. What would happen would be to build a new arena in the Park East Corridor, to the north of the BC. Scuttle the US Cellular arena and move those events to the BC. The new arena would serve as the anchor to the Park East development. Aside from egos, there is the issue of the WI Center District being union and BC being non-union. Otherwise, this is a no-brainer and the way I'd expect this to play out. The funding ability already exists.

 

The second option is the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball District (aka, Miller Park Stadium Board). They have untapped borrowing capacity and a tax that is already in place. They could borrow the money from their stated capacity and just not sunset the existing half cent tax for another 10 years or so (don't have the projection in front of me). This arena would likely be placed between Miller Park and Potowatami Casino (but wouldn't be required). This is more of a long shot, but equally viable as the tax exists and the borrowing capacity is there. There has been plenty of discussion over the year by the board to mandate the sunset of the tax and restrict any future borrowing, etc. because this possibility has always been whispered about. It would be a battle, but could get done.

 

Those are the two options and the constructs are already there. The BC-WI Center District merger should have taken place years ago - it's logical. BC gets a new facility by tapping into the WI Center District's taxing capacity and is part of a new neighborhood "entertainment district" that could include acquiring the Journal Sentinel buildings as part of a larger real estate deal.

 

A new owner who is also involved in real estate development would make lots of sense.

[trwi7]

I'm not sure which politician would be better for a new stadium.

 

I don't think there's any question Barrett would be better than Walker for this.

[FVBrewerFan]

Any reason why Marquette wouldn't participate in funding a new arena? Not the main source of funding, but a significant contributor?

[owbc]

Very good thoughts by foamboy.

 

The fact is, plain and simple, that the Bucks will be out of Milwaukee by 2020 without a new arena. It's bad for the city to have the Bucks leave. I know people in Milwaukee generally do not follow the NBA (myself included) but all it takes is one big draft pick to completely change that. The NBA is also growing in popularity and having a team means global recognition for the city to some extent.

 

I think the stadium district and the Brewers should stay out of it. The arena fight is going to be difficult and take many years. Around half of the population is going to be strongly opposed. If the stadium district looks like they are in favor of extending the tax, it will look bad.

 

The Park East seems like the best location. I hadn't thought of the valley, but now that the spot behind the east lot is occupied, it doesn't make sense if you can't share the parking lots. The idea of making tailgaiting a Bucks tradition has potential though. But I think the Brewers should stay to themselves. Although there is one potential exception--and that would be if Mark A. is interested in buying the Bucks. But I don't think he would be--and getting involved in the arena battle is risky for his reputation. For whatever reason, the Brewers have collaborated with almost every other Milwaukee entertainment option--except the Bucks (maybe the Bucks weren't interested?)

 

The other valley option is to collaborate with the Potawatomi tribe. The Mohegan Sun have their own 10,000 seat arena in Connecticut and the WNBA team plays there. So it is possible. They are spending $100 million on a hotel, so it seems like a $100 or even $150 million contribution to an arena would not be unreasonable. Give them the naming rights to the arena and place it adjacent to their casino. It looks like there is space to the west.

 

The Park East area is just begging for the new arena. The parking and entertainment options are already there and it would be easier to sell to the public since the space is in desperate need of development. It also helps that the county owns the land which eliminates the acquisition cost. A potential problem is that the parcel between McKinley and Juneau looks too narrow for an arena. So they might have to acquire the block adjacent to the Bradley Center also, which could be a major hurdle. It seems like foamboy's idea to merge the districts would be the best way to go about getting the financing. It is essential to keep the public contribution as low as possible to increase the chances of approval. Regardless of your opinions on public financing of arenas, other cities have shown that it can still get done and the window isn't closed (yet). A $350-400 million arena is nothing compared to the $1 billion+ cost of baseball/football stadiums these days.

 

Overall my feeling is that this successfully gets done in 2-3 years and a new arena opens around 2016-2017. But it really all depends if Kohl is committed or not. I think he will fork out at least $100 million. A new arena would significantly raise the selling price of the Bucks and Kohl would stand to recoup most of that investment.

[owbc]

Now, as for Marquette, the question is, what do they stand to gain by moving into a new arena? They might increase revenues, but that will depend almost completely on what kind of deal they strike with the new arena's governing board. It also depends on if the arena is run by the same group as the Bradley Center or not. They could potentially negotiate a better deal if two arenas are competing for their services. But I don't even know if Marquette is worth enough for that to happen--they draw about 275,000 to the BC in 2011 vs. around 650,000 for the currently unpopular Bucks--and the Bucks have much higher ticket prices (remember, the Marquette students pay $7/game and account for about 1/4-1/3 of that Marquette attendance total). So Marquette might not get much of a chunk of the amenities that a new arena would offer.

 

I see some big advantages for Marquette staying the BC as the primary tenant. They could possibly get a deal that gives them free reign to make significant changes/renovations. I can see the BC looking more like a campus arena--decorated fully in blue and gold. They could take over control of the suites and make appropriate renovations to increase revenue. A permanent team store could be built. The Admirals might have something to say about that, but they definitely come in third place and could even be moved to the new arena (it would be crazy not to have an ice rink, even if the seating configuration is for basketball).

[Baldkin]

If a new arena gets built there is no way the Cell stays in business, there is no way Milwaukee could support 3 arenas of that size, and that real estate is just too valuable (even in the form of a parking garage) to go to waste. That leaves UWM basketball looking for a home, as well.

 

Marquette would increase revenue exponentially by moving into the new arena. They make their money off of suites, and the Bradley center suite revenue is horrible. They could triple that with a new arena easily.

[owbc]

Marquette would increase revenue exponentially by moving into the new arena. They make their money off of suites, and the Bradley center suite revenue is horrible. They could triple that with a new arena easily.

 

Why is the BC suite deal bad for Marquette? It's because Marquette has no control over them. And that isn't going to change with the new arena, the Bucks will again control the suites and Marquette will have to fight for a small percentage of the revenue.

 

If Marquette stays in the BC, the suites will all be open and Marquette will be in a position to take full control of them and get back close to 100% of the revenue. There is a reasonable probability that Marquette would make more money at the BC, even if the new arena has double or triple the number of suites.

 

Now--in the end--I think you are right and Marquette will move. But it is far from a guarantee.

 

I fail to see how the US Cellular Arena would lose any tenants with a third arena. There is no guarantee that UWM or the Wave would move to the BC, neither has any use for the BC's spacious upper level. The US Cellular arena also has other events--high school graduations, small concerts, a roller derby tournament, church groups, etc. None of those events would be better suited to the Bradley Center.

[foamboy1]

As far as the Juneau/McKinley corridor being too narrow, I'm virtually certain the BC owns all the land and buildings to the north of their site. There were a couple of parking lots, but then a couple of business/buildings as well. If I recall correctly, they finished buying the buildings a few years back. That gives them a lot of space to begin something north of the BC and all the way to McKinley.

 

I know the Journal Sentinel buildings have been discussed as part of an acquisition to a "sports entertainment district."

 

The initial discussions around the merger (of the two groups) would be to shut down the Cell once the new place is built and move all of those events to the BC.

 

I'm not sure about how Marquette plays into this. I know they like to sell to their kids "they play in the same facility as the NBA team." At the same time, the BC is still a nice venue. Not sure how that plays out.

 

The WI center district earns monthly tax revenues from a surcharge tax on hotels, rental cars, etc. within Milwaukee County only. This tax is enough to make the debt obligations of the $185M borrowed for the new convention center.

 

The merger of the WI center district and the BC board is a no-brainer. The only thing that has prevented a merger is ego. It makes way too much sense for it to not happen eventually.

 

That said, there is a lot of work to be done. I think we'll see this become a more more visible issue after the recall election. Even then, a committee would likely be formed to identify the best sites, etc. If you recall, the water street business coalition had a site for the Brewers and were offering serious money in order to locate there. The same thing could happen here. I think the end result is more of an "entertainment district" than just another arena.

[FVBrewerFan]

Marquette would increase revenue exponentially by moving into the new arena. They make their money off of suites, and the Bradley center suite revenue is horrible. They could triple that with a new arena easily.

 

Why is the BC suite deal bad for Marquette? It's because Marquette has no control over them. And that isn't going to change with the new arena, the Bucks will again control the suites and Marquette will have to fight for a small percentage of the revenue.

 

 

 

Marquette would have more control if they invest a larger stake in the new arena though, wouldn't they?

 

Also, I don't see how three arenas would work in Milwaukee. And with or without Marquette, I just see the BC dying a slow death. Then where does Marquette go? It is in their best interest to have a new arena designed around basketball and maximizing revenue with better suites.

 

Maybe something like a 1/3 split between Bucks, Marquette, and City/County/State taxes?

[foamboy1]

I'm fairly confident that Marquette would not be a financial contributor to a new arena.

 

I'm also fairly confident the US Cellular Arena would go away and those event would then be played at the BC.

[RockCoCougars]

I'm fairly confident that Marquette would not be a financial contributor to a new arena.

 

 

There is no chance. Marquette is in the fundraising business- they don't do philanthropy. That said, I'd like to look at what Marquette pays to host their games at the Bradley Center. I've got to think that this is a major cash cow for them, playing basketball in a money conference without having to worry about building/maintaining an arena. I think that Marquette could afford to pay much more in a new arena, if they were given a nice chunk of suites, etc.

 

I'm also fairly confident the US Cellular Arena would go away and those event would then be played at the BC.

 

I'm not privy to the details of the Petitt gift, but I have to think that the Bradley Center would have to come down if the new arena is built. It takes up too much real estate and would be very expensive to maintain. I'd think that the MECCA is much better to keep around because it's much smaller and I'd assume cheaper to maintain. I'd guess that any new arena project is going to take up much more space than the Bradley Center does now. My guess is that the arena will be built on adjoining land, and we'll see a parking ramp/entertainment complex on the parcel where the Bradley Center now stands.

[owbc]

Marquette's lease at the BC is mediocre at best. The best I can find is the details of their contract from 2006, which has expired, but I doubt the numbers have increased more than 10-15% since. LINK.

 

Marquette pays $19,600 per game to rent the BC.

Marquette gets $14,000 per game of suite revenue. Total. That's a whopping $200 per suite per game.

The Bradley Center gets the first $80,000 of merchandise sales. After that, Marquette gets 20%.

Marquette has to default to the Bucks in scheduling.

It doesn't say anything about concessions--which is important since Wisconsin made $723,000 off basketball concessions in 2010-11.

 

Marquette's basketball revenue is $15.6 million, compared with $16.4 million for Wisconsin. So they are doing fine in the revenue department. Without knowing the expenses it is hard to say what kind of profit they are making compared to WI, so I can't comment on whether an on-campus vs. off-campus arena is better.

 

The per-game lease price seems fair, or about $350,000/year to rent the facility. But they are completely getting screwed over on the suites. It's tough to compare to a new arena. But if the Bucks are gone from the BC, Marquette can probably work a deal to sell the suites themselves and get a much larger cut. Or, with the new arena, they would still only get a small cut of the suites, but it would be a larger sum and there would be more suites. There's no reason to think Marquette would get a higher % of suite revenue, it would still be very small relative to their overall revenue. Rent would also be much higher at the new arena and they would still have to default to the Bucks.

 

There is no way Marquette would be able to make any appreciable financial contribution to a new arena--their athletics department does not make a profit. They would have to sign a lease similar to the current one. My point is that a new arena is not necessarily the better option for Marquette. But you have to think they will work a deal to get there in the end, even if it means they don't make any additional money. Like others said, the marketing value to recruits/fans is probably the trump card.

 

There's no way the BC would get removed to build a new arena. Good luck selling that one to the taxpayers--destroying a 25-year old arena that was given to the city as a gift and is far superior to the next-door neighbor. Not happening. Then you have to ask whether it is even worth it to tear down the US Cellular Arena. Although I never went to a game, it seems like the US Cellular Arena is a nice fit for UWM, while the BC would be cold and spacious. So I think the "Cell" stands until UWM gets an on-campus arena. There clearly isn't any other use for the land since the Park East is just a few blocks away and has been vacant for years. And finally--where are the Bucks going to play for 2 years if they tear down the BC and put the new arena on that parcel? They would lose tens of millions of dollars if they played at the Cell, and Miller Park would never work. If they build it next door, why waste millions tearing down the BC?

[RockCoCougars]

I just don't see how they could/would keep the BC around as a white elephant second banana arena downtown. Obviously, the fact that it was a gift throws a big wrench into things, but the place would get insanely expensive to maintain for little or no reason. The BC would be pushing 30 years by the time everything was said and done anyway.. If they were to build the new arena on an adjoining parcel, the Bucks could play at the BC until it was finished.

[foamboy1]

Cougars...

 

I don't understand why you believe the Bradley Center has to torn down. The Cell has been maintained as the backup to the BC. Why not allow the BC to be the backup to the new arena? Tear down the Cell - the Cell is Flintstone's compared to the BC's Jetson's.

 

I would believe that MU could improve their financial standing by establishing a relationship with the BC after a new arena is built. Today, the BC operates solely to support the Bucks, squeezing every source for the franchise. If the Bucks has a new arena and MU wanted to be the lead tenant in the "old" building, they likely would have more revenue rights. It wouldn't be as sexy as playing in the new NBA arena, but it's still a nice place that MU could be the "lead dog."

[RockCoCougars]

Cougars...

 

I don't understand why you believe the Bradley Center has to torn down. The Cell has been maintained as the backup to the BC. Why not allow the BC to be the backup to the new arena? Tear down the Cell - the Cell is Flintstone's compared to the BC's Jetson's.

 

I would believe that MU could improve their financial standing by establishing a relationship with the BC after a new arena is built. Today, the BC operates solely to support the Bucks, squeezing every source for the franchise. If the Bucks has a new arena and MU wanted to be the lead tenant in the "old" building, they likely would have more revenue rights. It wouldn't be as sexy as playing in the new NBA arena, but it's still a nice place that MU could be the "lead dog."

 

First and foremost, the Bradley Center takes up much more real estate than the Mecca. I think that the Mecca also serves a niche for smaller events in town (barely holds half of the BC). Also, a ton of money has been put into renovating the Mecca in recent years, and due to its smaller size, it would probably be cheaper to maintain in the long run (it is also probably better built than the BC). I just don't see the point in keeping two arenas with 20K-ish seating capacity downtown. All the premier events would go to the new place, and it makes no sense to me to keep the Bradley Center around for 20 some home games a year of Marquette basketball. I'm not going to lose any sleep over Marquette not getting a fair share of revenue... as I stated above, they are in the catbird seat not having any concern related to spending toward building and maintaining an arena. I'm sure that they make good money on ticket sales, and probably a ton more from the Big East basketball TV deal.

[foamboy1]

Thanks. I wasn't calling you out. I was just curious as to the rationale. You could well be right.

 

The basis for my communication was to lay out how I expect an arena to be built in Milwaukee. It won't happen soon, but the framework and taxing authority are already in place - this is a big hurdle.

[RockCoCougars]

Thanks. I wasn't calling you out. I was just curious as to the rationale. You could well be right.

 

The basis for my communication was to lay out how I expect an arena to be built in Milwaukee. It won't happen soon, but the framework and taxing authority are already in place - this is a big hurdle.

 

Absolutely. Tearing down a gifted and paid off arena not even 30 years old as part of a plea for public funds is going to be a PR nightmare. Going further, razing the BC may not even be possible under the terms of the Petitt gift, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't know why the BC isn't gutted and renovated perhaps with an addition to the West or North. You could remove some of the seating capacity to add suites. My guess is that a reduction in seating capacity probably isn't acceptable to the NBA and the infrastructure of the building itself may not lend to such a product.

[homer]

Personally, I don't know why the BC isn't gutted and renovated perhaps with an addition to the West or North. You could remove some of the seating capacity to add suites. My guess is that a reduction in seating capacity probably isn't acceptable to the NBA and the infrastructure of the building itself may not lend to such a product.

 

My guess is that would cost as much as a new arena to do what needs to be done to get the revenue stream the Bucks need.

[bani1717]

Renovating the BC is pointless. The whole building was built to be geared toward hockey. If/when a new arena is built, I'd really like to see it be more like the Kohl Center - 3 levels, with the top level not being a mile away from the court