Milwaukee Bucks 2014 - 2015 (part 2)

[patrickgpe]

 

It's not hard to imagine a budget where the Governor at least checked if the Menomonee where serious about paying for an arena .

 

i'm surprised that i haven't heard a word about this recently, and completely forgot about the offer.

[FVBrewerFan]

Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.

 

And nobody has ever built a great economy here by pumping millions more into the UW System. I'm sure you're familiar with the problem WI has with "brain drain." People graduate and leave the state in record droves. That's not adding anything to our economy. Spending hundreds of millions on new academic buildings when often times the existing facilities were just fine adds nothing to the economy. Or having redundant 2 and 4 year campuses close by in rural areas.

 

Point being, $80MM in state money for an arena has zero effect on educating students in this state of any age. But if you feel it does, then you should want the money spent on the arena, because it will be less than doing nothing.

 

You used the example earlier of how the jock tax can be made up by people using their entertainment dollar elsewhere. I see where you're going with that, but you're mixing two different things- sales tax and jock tax. Yes, you may be able to make up for some of lost sales tax revenue by losing 41 Bucks games a year. Many of those people will buy a hot dog somewhere else. But that has nothing to do with the jock tax. That tax revenue goes to ZERO if the Bucks leave.

[BrewBalls]

"If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games."

 

And how many of those workers are minimum wage?

 

And at what cost to infrastructure and university workers, who make a bunch more than minimum wage? What cost to university students? What cost to researchers?

 

I'm not against a Bucks arena with public financing. But, in the context of this current budget, I can't support it over other choices on where to spend taxpayer money. Other choices which I think will have much more long-term impact. Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.

The Bucks arena is in no way related to the University of Wisconsin budget cuts. The state has to include $120 million into this new budget for the Bradley Center to cover maintenance costs and $20M in current debt if the the Bucks leave.This money was already spent if a new arena is built or not. The state is not robbing Peter (UW) to pay Pual (the Bucks). Did you listen to the press conference yesterday? If not, here's the link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/wi-sports/milwaukee-bucks/Bucks-Arena-deal-announcement-expected-this-afternoon-306134461.html Please do not attempt to bundle seperate issues which are not even remotely related (except by dollar amount) to make your point. Stick to the actual facts and if you do not know the facts then do some research before commneting.

[BrewBalls]

Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.

 

And nobody has ever built a great economy here by pumping millions more into the UW System. I'm sure you're familiar with the problem WI has with "brain drain." People graduate and leave the state in record droves. That's not adding anything to our economy. Spending hundreds of millions on new academic buildings when often times the existing facilities were just fine adds nothing to the economy. Or having redundant 2 and 4 year campuses close by in rural areas.

 

Point being, $80MM in state money for an arena has zero effect on educating students in this state of any age. But if you feel it does, then you should want the money spent on the arena, because it will be less than doing nothing.

 

You used the example earlier of how the jock tax can be made up by people using their entertainment dollar elsewhere. I see where you're going with that, but you're mixing two different things- sales tax and jock tax. Yes, you may be able to make up for some of lost sales tax revenue by losing 41 Bucks games a year. Many of those people will buy a hot dog somewhere else. But that has nothing to do with the jock tax. That tax revenue goes to ZERO if the Bucks leave.

Great point. This tax revenue is currently about $7M per year and is projected to rise to $10M once the new TV deal goes into effect. This means you are taking $200M out of the state budget over the next 20 years. Now add in the fact the state estimates it will cost $20M per year to maintain the Bradley Center without a majority tenant and you can see how this will have a negative impact on the state.

[RobertR]

"If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games."

 

And how many of those workers are minimum wage?

 

And at what cost to infrastructure and university workers, who make a bunch more than minimum wage? What cost to university students? What cost to researchers?

 

I'm not against a Bucks arena with public financing. But, in the context of this current budget, I can't support it over other choices on where to spend taxpayer money. Other choices which I think will have much more long-term impact. Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.

The Bucks arena is in no way related to the University of Wisconsin budget cuts. The state has to include $120 million into this new budget for the Bradley Center to cover maintenance costs and $20M in current debt if the the Bucks leave.This money was already spent if a new arena is built or not. The state is not robbing Peter (UW) to pay Pual (the Bucks). Did you listen to the press conference yesterday? If not, here's the link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/wi-sports/milwaukee-bucks/Bucks-Arena-deal-announcement-expected-this-afternoon-306134461.html Please do not attempt to bundle seperate issues which are not even remotely related (except by dollar amount) to make your point. Stick to the actual facts and if you do not know the facts then do some research before commneting.

 

Baloney. The State has many more options than come up with $140 million immediately if the Bucks leave. They can refinance, prioritize and defer maintenance as they want. If they can delay freeway construction, they can delay maintenance on an existing, usable arena. Heck, it's probably too late for the Bucks to move this year anyways. Might even be too late for next year. It's not like the BC is currently vacant with no tenants or events for the upcoming year. Marquette for instance.

 

Even if they do decide to come up with $140 million, that still leaves $110 million of uncommitted taxpayer money that could be used for a variety of things.

 

Or, they could, you know, accept the Medicare money.

 

That stick is one created out of thin air for political purposes, to make the carrot of a new arena look more enticing. Outstate legislators have to tell something to their constituents to justify their vote.

 

Don't confuse rigged political choices as the only choices in this situation.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think the downside if even bigger than what they're saying if the Bucks leave. Operating costs of the BC and jock tax are a given, not disputable. But if that isn't enough, how about sales tax revenue that will be lost?

 

Just to use round numbers, let's say the Bucks attract 500,000 fans a year. A big share of those may eat at home, or out in the burbs, whatever. But there is still a large number of fans (like myself) that come in from out of town, dine at dtown restaurant, sometimes stay at a hotel dtown. All that money is lost without the Bucks, including the sales tax revenue I'm spending. Now multiply that be however many thousand people.

 

SOME of that can be recouped by spending entertainment dollars elsewhere. But most of it is not. It's not like people say "hey the Bucks are gone, I'll go to the Symphony instead." No, they just don't go downtown.

 

So, in addition to the known impact of losing the Bucks, this is another factor that needs to be considered. Tax revenue lost, and the ripple effect of downtown restaurants, bars, hotels and their employees.

[tmwiese55]

Robert, I applaud you for sticking to your guns but I think everything you're saying is completely countered. Of course there is dirty politics, good luck find a bill that doesn't include dirty politics, don't act like this is weird, it's the only way to get stuff done. If the deal didn't get done the people on the side of wanting to keep the bucks can say it was dirty politics in not getting the funding done.

[RobertR]

Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.

 

And nobody has ever built a great economy here by pumping millions more into the UW System. I'm sure you're familiar with the problem WI has with "brain drain." People graduate and leave the state in record droves. That's not adding anything to our economy. Spending hundreds of millions on new academic buildings when often times the existing facilities were just fine adds nothing to the economy. Or having redundant 2 and 4 year campuses close by in rural areas.

 

Point being, $80MM in state money for an arena has zero effect on educating students in this state of any age. But if you feel it does, then you should want the money spent on the arena, because it will be less than doing nothing.

 

You used the example earlier of how the jock tax can be made up by people using their entertainment dollar elsewhere. I see where you're going with that, but you're mixing two different things- sales tax and jock tax. Yes, you may be able to make up for some of lost sales tax revenue by losing 41 Bucks games a year. Many of those people will buy a hot dog somewhere else. But that has nothing to do with the jock tax. That tax revenue goes to ZERO if the Bucks leave.

 

What, hot dog sellers don't pay income tax?

 

There will be replacements for the Bucks. You think the Bradley Center will be vacant on all 41 dates? You don't think the Trans-Siberian Orchestra won't try to fit in another date or two? Or maybe the Globe Trotters will make an additional swing by? And you think none of those performers pay income tax?

 

Or, that the Brewers and Packers won't benefit? There's a very good chance that a bunch of corporate money will be freed up that will go to the Brewers and Packers, which will funnel down to the players, and will come back to the state in the form of income tax. Or "jock tax".

 

I'll agree that there likely will be a decrease in income tax revenues if the NBA leaves Wisconsin. It won't go down 100% to zero though. People aren't going to sit around and do nothing on a Friday or Saturday night if the Bucks leave, and that money will flow through the economy. And come into the State coffers in the form of income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax in various forms.

 

Heck, to use a recent example, without the Bucks competing for entertainment dollars, you don't think something like The Book of Mormon couldn't have justified another week in town?

[BrewBalls]

"If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games."

 

And how many of those workers are minimum wage?

 

And at what cost to infrastructure and university workers, who make a bunch more than minimum wage? What cost to university students? What cost to researchers?

 

I'm not against a Bucks arena with public financing. But, in the context of this current budget, I can't support it over other choices on where to spend taxpayer money. Other choices which I think will have much more long-term impact. Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.

The Bucks arena is in no way related to the University of Wisconsin budget cuts. The state has to include $120 million into this new budget for the Bradley Center to cover maintenance costs and $20M in current debt if the the Bucks leave.This money was already spent if a new arena is built or not. The state is not robbing Peter (UW) to pay Pual (the Bucks). Did you listen to the press conference yesterday? If not, here's the link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/wi-sports/milwaukee-bucks/Bucks-Arena-deal-announcement-expected-this-afternoon-306134461.html Please do not attempt to bundle seperate issues which are not even remotely related (except by dollar amount) to make your point. Stick to the actual facts and if you do not know the facts then do some research before commneting.

 

Baloney. The State has many more options than come up with $140 million immediately if the Bucks leave. They can refinance, prioritize and defer maintenance as they want. If they can delay freeway construction, they can delay maintenance on an existing, usable arena. Heck, it's probably too late for the Bucks to move this year anyways. Might even be too late for next year. It's not like the BC is currently vacant with no tenants or events for the upcoming year. Marquette for instance.

 

Even if they do decide to come up with $140 million, that still leaves $110 million of uncommitted taxpayer money that could be used for a variety of things.

 

Or, they could, you know, accept the Medicare money.

 

That stick is one created out of thin air for political purposes, to make the carrot of a new arena look more enticing. Outstate legislators have to tell something to their constituents to justify their vote.

 

Don't confuse rigged political choices as the only choices in this situation.

Those numbers were not pulled out of thin air and if its so easy to drum up $140M then it shouldn't have any effect on the average taxpayer. And if the state defers maintentance on a far from usable arena then they could lose their other tenants. Have you ever seen a mismanaged strip mall in a old and deserted urban area, the store fronts are vacant. And by building this arena the state is making an investment to rebuild and revive a barren wasteland which is currently Park East in the heart of our largest city.

[tmwiese55]

Of course it won't go to 0% but it will go drastically down. For the shows you're talking they're not jonesing to get to MKE in the winter and even those aren't averaging 15K in attendance(over 18K if they actually get good) and most importantly you're losing the taxes from the NBA. This bill literally pays for itself. It's a 100% no-brainer.

[FVBrewerFan]

Robert...I don't know how else to say this. You keep bringing up alternate replacements for the Bucks. Yes, I agree. I don't think it will be to the degree you do, but let's say it's 100%. Neutral. Not a dollar lost in sales tax revenue. That still has NOTHING to do with the "jock tax." That tax is a zero-sum game. If the Bucks leave, that tax revenue goes away- 100%...period.

 

And sorry, I have no idea of what you're talking about with more corporate money going to Packers and Brewers. That will have no effect on the jock tax. Player salaries are driven by TV contracts, especially NBA and NFL. There is no "funneling down." The Packers salary cap is set, for example, and has nothing to do with more corporate dollars coming in.

 

 

All these alternatives you're talking about help off-set the SALES TAX revenue that would be lost, but has absolutely nothing to do with the jock tax.

[BrewBalls]

 

What, hot dog sellers don't pay income tax?

 

There will be replacements for the Bucks. You think the Bradley Center will be vacant on all 41 dates? You don't think the Trans-Siberian Orchestra won't try to fit in another date or two? Or maybe the Globe Trotters will make an additional swing by? And you think none of those performers pay income tax?

 

Or, that the Brewers and Packers won't benefit? There's a very good chance that a bunch of corporate money will be freed up that will go to the Brewers and Packers, which will funnel down to the players, and will come back to the state in the form of income tax. Or "jock tax".

 

I'll agree that there likely will be a decrease in income tax revenues if the NBA leaves Wisconsin. It won't go down 100% to zero though. People aren't going to sit around and do nothing on a Friday or Saturday night if the Bucks leave, and that money will flow through the economy. And come into the State coffers in the form of income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax in various forms.

 

Heck, to use a recent example, without the Bucks competing for entertainment dollars, you don't think something like The Book of Mormon couldn't have justified another week in town?

None of these acts of shows have employees making over $50K per night and also bringing in another team making the same. How many hot dog venders, Orchestra members or Harlem Globetrotters does it take to match these salaries? And don't forget all of the front office jobs lost. Also, I'm not worried about people finding something to spend thier money on on a Friday or Saturday night. But what about a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night when they normally don't go out. And to say corporations will just funnel more money into the other sports teams is ridiculous. Most of these corporate sponsors (i.e. H.D. Miller, CocaCola) spend money at all venues. Will Harley Davidson buy a second suite at Miller Park if the Bucks leave? There are only so many suites and tickets to buy and the Packers sellout every game.

[patrickgpe]

this thread has gotten way too political, i'm hoping things change once the uniforms are released tomorrow

[BrewBalls]

this thread has gotten way too political, i'm hoping things change once the uniforms are released tomorrow

Speaking of Uniforms I hope they go with a cream color for home unis. I also think a blue trim would be a cool touch.

[RobertR]

We don't know that it will go drastically down. For all we know, people will merely put off a trip to the Bucks in winter for a trip to the Brewers in the summer. I think it's clear that the economic studies indicate that the effect is muted because people substitute other things.

 

Maybe they buy a new tv. Maybe they buy a sports package on cable. Maybe they go to more Badgers, Brewers, Packers, or Marquette events. Maybe they just go to the local bar for drinks. Maybe the Broadway at the Marcus Center gets more patrons for their big shows (which aren't cheap btw). No doubt the effect would be more spread out, but there will be compensating substitutes. And those substitutes contribute to the economy and tax streams.

 

One thing people won't do is sit around in the dark doing nothing if the Bucks leave town. Every other option contributes to the State economy in some way. Maybe not as much as the Bucks, but those recreational options do contribute to the State economy.

 

So, yeah, I do dispute the cost of doing away with the so called "jock tax". There will be a cost, but that $7 to $10 million is not a hard number. Yeah, you'd lose the taxes from the NBA, but there are potential gains from MLB, NFL, and all other forms of entertainment in the State. I assume that we all agree that there's a number less than $7 to $10 million a year in which the project shifts from a net positive to a negative. And there certainly have been a number of municipalities that have had buyer's regret.

 

The major loss would be the concentration of people in the downtown area on any given winter night. I don't for a second believe that downtown Milwaukee would turn into a ghost town during the winter, it doesn't when the Bucks are out of town, but I agree that there's no single substitute that would reliably draw 15-18k people to the downtown. There aren't 41 concerts of that size.

 

I think Milwaukee and Wisconsin would be better off with a new arena and the Bucks. If the budget was in better shape, I'd be less worried about ROI and what our priorities should be. But, I'm taking the sales job with a grain of salt here.

[RobertR]

None of these acts of shows have employees making over $50K per night and also bringing in another team making the same. How many hot dog venders, Orchestra members or Harlem Globetrotters does it take to match these salaries? And don't forget all of the front office jobs lost. Also, I'm not worried about people finding something to spend thier money on on a Friday or Saturday night. But what about a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night when they normally don't go out. And to say corporations will just funnel more money into the other sports teams is ridiculous. Most of these corporate sponsors (i.e. H.D. Miller, CocaCola) spend money at all venues. Will Harley Davidson buy a second suite at Miller Park if the Bucks leave? There are only so many suites and tickets to buy and the Packers sellout every game.

 

You don't think that if the Bucks leave, the Brewers and Packers won't raise the prices on their suites? The fact that the Packers sell out every game and a limited amount of suites, shows that they could raise prices higher. There's a limited supply, but no doubt high demand.

[BrewBalls]

None of these acts of shows have employees making over $50K per night and also bringing in another team making the same. How many hot dog venders, Orchestra members or Harlem Globetrotters does it take to match these salaries? And don't forget all of the front office jobs lost. Also, I'm not worried about people finding something to spend thier money on on a Friday or Saturday night. But what about a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night when they normally don't go out. And to say corporations will just funnel more money into the other sports teams is ridiculous. Most of these corporate sponsors (i.e. H.D. Miller, CocaCola) spend money at all venues. Will Harley Davidson buy a second suite at Miller Park if the Bucks leave? There are only so many suites and tickets to buy and the Packers sellout every game.

 

You don't think that if the Bucks leave, the Brewers and Packers won't raise the prices on their suites? The fact that the Packers sell out every game and a limited amount of suites, shows that they could raise prices higher. There's a limited supply, but no doubt high demand.

You cannot recoup all of the lost sales tax from losing 500,000 in attendance in Milwaukee by simply raising ticket prices in Green Bay. Even if this did offset the lost sales tax how do you make up the lost jock taxes which can no longer be collected on NBA games in the state? Again the majority of the revenue for NBA teams doesn't come from ticket and concession sales but TV contracts. So how do you recover the lost income taxes of million dollar athletes is my question to you?

[RobertR]

None of these acts of shows have employees making over $50K per night and also bringing in another team making the same. How many hot dog venders, Orchestra members or Harlem Globetrotters does it take to match these salaries? And don't forget all of the front office jobs lost. Also, I'm not worried about people finding something to spend thier money on on a Friday or Saturday night. But what about a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night when they normally don't go out. And to say corporations will just funnel more money into the other sports teams is ridiculous. Most of these corporate sponsors (i.e. H.D. Miller, CocaCola) spend money at all venues. Will Harley Davidson buy a second suite at Miller Park if the Bucks leave? There are only so many suites and tickets to buy and the Packers sellout every game.

 

You don't think that if the Bucks leave, the Brewers and Packers won't raise the prices on their suites? The fact that the Packers sell out every game and a limited amount of suites, shows that they could raise prices higher. There's a limited supply, but no doubt high demand.

You cannot recoup all of the lost sales tax from losing 500,000 in attendance in Milwaukee by simply raising ticket prices in Green Bay. Even if this did offset the lost sales tax how do you make up the lost jock taxes which can no longer be collected on NBA games in the state?

 

This so-called Jock Tax is an income tax. If the Packers and Brewers raise ticket prices and revenues, invariably player salaries increase. Player salaries increasing results in increased income tax/jock tax, from Brewers and Packers players.

 

You're right that I don't expect the Brewers and Packers to increase their payroll combined as much as the Bucks payroll would have been, but I do expect the Brewers and Packers to benefit and mitigate the effect to the State revenue. And I expect that's only one substitution effect out of many. Will all of them add up to what the Bucks brought? Doubtful, but again it backs up the idea that economic studies have shown that arenas/stadiums don't have the effects that their boosters claim.

 

Which is all to say, that the case for the arena is a lot more complicated than "we'll lose $7 to $10 million" in income tax revenue. I don't know what the lower number is, but I do know that it is lower.

[FVBrewerFan]

So how do you recover the lost income taxes of million dollar athletes is my question to you?

 

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts

[BrewBalls]

So how do you recover the lost income taxes of million dollar athletes is my question to you?

 

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts

Been to both and actually preferred Whitesnake even without Tawny Kitean. I bet Vanilla Ice is hoping the Bucks leave so he can book up an entire week for a concert and home flipping seminar. Another 34 "headliners" and it will be "Bucks who?"

[patrickgpe]

this thread has gotten way too political, i'm hoping things change once the uniforms are released tomorrow

Speaking of Uniforms I hope they go with a cream color for home unis. I also think a blue trim would be a cool touch.

 

i read on realgm that the home uniforms will be white, roads green, also heard rumors of a black sleeved alternate (hope that this is wrong).

 

i posted a photo that i saw on realgm of a concept that looks pretty legit a few days ago.

[FVBrewerFan]

So how do you recover the lost income taxes of million dollar athletes is my question to you?

 

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts

Been to both and actually preferred Whitesnake even without Tawny Kitean. I bet Vanilla Ice is hoping the Bucks leave so he can book up an entire week for a concert and home flipping seminar. Another 34 "headliners" and it will be "Bucks who?"

 

Marquette HS volleyball games, Billy Crystal stand-up...these dates are going fast

[tmwiese55]

Wow, can't believe this concept is so hard to grasp. Bucks players income is roughly what 70mil (yes I know they pay their road taxes in road states but it's balanced by the road team paying when here). 35 mil of that is paid into taxes, I don't what % is stave vs federal but that tax is now 100% gone. Moreover, the cap is about to skyrocket to around 100mil, so it's only going up because the league is exploding worldwide. Now throw in corporate taxes on a billion dollar company. This is all gone if they leave, it literally pays for itself. Getting 50% paid by the owners is a much better deal than any other city gets. This is a no brainer.

[BrewBalls]

 

This so-called Jock Tax is an income tax. If the Packers and Brewers raise ticket prices and revenues, invariably player salaries increase. Player salaries increasing results in increased income tax/jock tax, from Brewers and Packers players.

 

This doesn't work for either team. The Packers are resticted by a salary cap and the Brewers are already operating in the red with a $100M payroll. I can't see you making up $70M in lost wages by simply raising ticket prices.

You're right that I don't expect the Brewers and Packers to increase their payroll combined as much as the Bucks payroll would have been, but I do expect the Brewers and Packers to benefit and mitigate the effect to the State revenue. And I expect that's only one substitution effect out of many. Will all of them add up to what the Bucks brought? Doubtful, but again it backs up the idea that economic studies have shown that arenas/stadiums don't have the effects that their boosters claim.

The Packers (meaning the city) seem to have no trouble reinvesting back into their stadium. So why would the city approve a $140M renovation of the atrium and pro shop if it was economically irresponsible to do so like your so called studies say?

Which is all to say, that the case for the arena is a lot more complicated than "we'll lose $7 to $10 million" in income tax revenue. I don't know what the lower number is, but I do know that it is lower.

You're exactly correct. It is a lot more complicated to determine. I was using a simple calculation as an example but the actual economic impact of the Bucks relocating would be much worse on the local economy. you are taking away hundreds of front office jobs, thousands of part time jobs for gamedays, loss of sales of surrounding restuarants, bars and stores selling Bucks apparel and parking fees. If you have ever been near an arena or stadium on game day every restuarant and bar is packed and the streets are filled with fans who normally are not in from this area. The impact on our largest city would be devastating from an economic standpoint regardless of whatever creative accounting practices the state comes up with to balance their budget.

[BrewBalls]

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts

Been to both and actually preferred Whitesnake even without Tawny Kitean. I bet Vanilla Ice is hoping the Bucks leave so he can book up an entire week for a concert and home flipping seminar. Another 34 "headliners" and it will be "Bucks who?"

 

Marquette HS volleyball games, Billy Crystal stand-up...these dates are going fast

The Knit and Crochet Show just booked. Wow! Who needs those evil Milwaukee Bucks? Hello easy street!