Study says Stadium District may run out of money- Will Brewers ask for more taxpayer funding?

[rondoman]

http://jakehasablog.blogspot.com/2022/02/here-it-comes-how-to-pay-for-the-next.html?m=1

 

 

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2022/02/14/murphys-law-brewers-seek-more-taxpayer-dollars/#comment-1576085

 

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2022/02/14/18495/brewers-state-of-the-art-clause-could-require-87m-in-fresh-taxpayer-subsidies/

 

 

Because or course they do.

[sixtolezcano16]

http://jakehasablog.blogspot.com/2022/02/here-it-comes-how-to-pay-for-the-next.html?m=1

 

 

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2022/02/14/murphys-law-brewers-seek-more-taxpayer-dollars/#comment-1576085

 

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2022/02/14/18495/brewers-state-of-the-art-clause-could-require-87m-in-fresh-taxpayer-subsidies/

 

 

Because or course they do.

 

And Attanasio will only spend $120 M for player salaries. That is really embarrassing. Mark needs to step up to at least $155-160M. He can’t possibly plead poverty. Stop stealing $$ from the public.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Lezcano16

[rondoman]

http://jakehasablog.blogspot.com/2022/02/here-it-comes-how-to-pay-for-the-next.html?m=1

 

 

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2022/02/14/murphys-law-brewers-seek-more-taxpayer-dollars/#comment-1576085

 

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2022/02/14/18495/brewers-state-of-the-art-clause-could-require-87m-in-fresh-taxpayer-subsidies/

 

 

Because or course they do.

 

And Attanasio will only spend $120 M for player salaries. That is really embarrassing. Mark needs to step up to at least $155-160M.

 

 

Exactly. But the rich don't get rich by spending their own money!

[PeaveyFury]

The title of this thread is misleading, as nothing in those links have the Brewers asking for anything. They’ve simply commissioned a study of anticipated stadium improvements needs through 2040. In addition, the three links appear to basically be blog posts that in some cases cite each other.

 

The way I read the source post is that the contract with the stadium district requires the district to pay for improvements to the stadium, and there’s concern that the district will run out of the money needed to do so. I don’t see the Brewers crying poor. I see possible concern that the district won’t have the funds to live up to their end of the deal.

[Jopal78]

The title of this thread is misleading, as nothing in those links have the Brewers asking for anything. They’ve simply commissioned a study of anticipated stadium improvements needs through 2040. In addition, the three links appear to basically be blog posts that in some cases cite each other.

 

The way I read the source post is that the contract with the stadium district requires the district to pay for improvements to the stadium, and there’s concern that the district will run out of the money needed to do so. I don’t see the Brewers crying poor. I see possible concern that the district won’t have the funds to live up to their end of the deal.

 

The Brewers haven’t asked yet. According to the reports there is a reserve fund from the stadium tax of 87 million dollars. The Brewers anticipate the improvements that will be recommended following the study they commissioned (the District declined to pay for their own study) will exceed the reserve fund which means the Brewers will have to pony up the difference themselves or ask for more public dollars.

 

With 8 years on their lease at the stadium, it’s the perfect timing. You’re likely to hear more chatter about needing improvements to stay competitive and then the chatter of potentially relocating if the 5 counties won’t give them the facility they want.

[JosephC]

I can still remember back in the late 1990's when Miller Park was being sold to the general public. The short version was it would be a 300 million dollar project, with 150 million coming from the public and the other 150 million coming the Brewers, naming rights, etc.

 

Originally, they said the sales tax would likely end in 2014. They didn't stop collecting the tax until 2020.

 

By the time it ended, they had collected 609 million dollars, over four times the amount they had originally told the public.

 

If our elected officials hand Attanasio more money, they are even more stupid than I think they are, which is saying a lot. How much revenue does MLB take in annually? Not one more penny from Wisconsin taxpayers. Not a single one.

[Patrick425]

Not sure why people believe an owner's personal wealth has anything to do with how much should be spent on payroll. I work for a company with one 100% owner and 7 other employees. Yes, much different scale, but the owner has never reached into his own pockets to help pay for employee salaries, rent, etc and I would not expect him to. If Musk, Bezos, or Buffett owned the Brewers, that would not change the Brewer's payroll. They would not reach into their own personal wealth to pay for player salaries.

 

Sounds like some people would rather have the Brewers move than spend "one more penny" of tax payer dollars. Do you think the Brewers add zero value to the community? Do you not think that it's amazing that Milwaukee, with the 40th ranked metropolitan area population in the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area), has a MLB baseball team?!

 

I get the anger at paying taxes for a place for a team owned by a millionaire with millionaire ballplayers to play. Your arguments are not invalid. However A) Tax subsidies are provided by states to companies all the time in order to incentivize them to stay in the state or come to the state (yes, I understand that there are some mixed results to these incentives), and B) Are you willing to possibly, at some point down the road, let the Brewers go to a city that will provide the Brewers with what they are looking for? This is Brewerfan, right?

Edited February 18, 2022 by Patrick425

[PeaveyFury]

I think to clarify what's actually happening here, the Brewers aren't asking the taxpayers for anything, nor will they. If someone has to come back to the taxpayers, it's the Stadium District, who may not be able to live up to their part of the contract they agreed to with the team. The study is meant to determine if that's a possible problem.

[bork]

There are articles in the JS, if anyone is a subscriber:

 

https://www.jsonline.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fstory%2Fmoney%2Freal-estate%2Fcommercial%2F2022%2F02%2F14%2Fmilwaukee-brewers-have-planned-years-seek-more-public-money%2F6709037001%2F

 

https://www.jsonline.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fstory%2Fmoney%2Freal-estate%2Fcommercial%2F2022%2F02%2F04%2Fbrewers-could-seek-public-funds-ballpark-but-not-5-counties%2F6661458001%2F

[jerichoholicninja]

Improvements through 2040? They'll be asking for a new stadium before then.

[djoctagone]

anyone remember what it took from the city of the phoenix to get the brewers to commit to staying put for another 25 years?

 

only $10 million over five years plus $1.4 million in annual operating costs. the brewers pledged $41 million to $63 million, depending on what was needed to complete the project to their satisfaction.

 

i was surprised that they brewers proposed funding so much of the maryvale renovation and expansion themselves. does this serve as an indicator of what they will seek from local and/or state government for american family field?

 

p.s. this serves as a reminder that you can't keep politics separated from baseball.

[Jopal78]

I think to clarify what's actually happening here, the Brewers aren't asking the taxpayers for anything, nor will they. If someone has to come back to the taxpayers, it's the Stadium District, who may not be able to live up to their part of the contract they agreed to with the team. The study is meant to determine if that's a possible problem.

 

While that's technically true, its somewhat of a distortion. If the Brewers want modifications to the stadium that cost X, and the Stadium Tax District has less than X, the Brewers will most likely tell them to get the money from somewhere and pony it up for the modifications or they're going to consider leaving for greener pastures when their lease expires in 2030.

 

From the JS articles I've read, I don't think the Stadium District has the authority to levy a new tax to collect money for stadium repairs so it would require legislation to do that. So in essence, yes, the Stadium District would push for new legislation, but only at the behest of their tenant Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, LLC.

 

But there is part where you are incorrect however. The Stadium District is the landlord and the Brewers are the tenant. Because the stadium district is a quasi-government entity it most assuredly is impossible for them as the landlord to "fail to live up to their part of the contract they agreed to with the team". To suggest otherwise means the stadium district breached their lease agreement with the Brewers, which is nonsense.

 

American Family Field is now 21 years old and the Brewers have 8 years left on their lease. The Ball Park at Arlington lasted 25 years before the Rangers left. Turner Field was 20 years before the Braves left. I guess we'll find out if this is much ado about nothing, or the first salvo in a push for another new stadium in Milwaukee.

[PeaveyFury]

But there is part where you are incorrect however. The Stadium District is the landlord and the Brewers are the tenant. Because the stadium district is a quasi-government entity it most assuredly is impossible for them as the landlord to "fail to live up to their part of the contract they agreed to with the team". To suggest otherwise means the stadium district breached their lease agreement with the Brewers, which is nonsense.

 

Not sure why the need for the condescension. The whole purpose of the study is to determine if they actually have the funds to live up to their part of the agreement with the Brewers as it is currently funded. Not sure why you're choosing to interpret the wording of a correct statement that simply omitted the 'as currently funded' part to spin it something that wasn't said.

 

And that's the issue that seems to be problematic with how this narrative is being spun, apparently by the JS and bloggers- the Brewers haven't and won't ask the taxpayers for anything. They will probably, however, ask the stadium district to meet the terms of their lease, as ANY tenet would of their landlord. Then the stadium district will have to obtain the funding if they're short, or they'll be non-compliant with the lease.

[JosephC]

 

Sounds like some people would rather have the Brewers move than spend "one more penny" of tax payer dollars.

 

In my case, that would be correct. I'd rather have them leave the state prior to giving them any more tax money.

[homer]

I blame the players

[markedman5]

Of all the taxes that I pay this one bothered me the least.

 

A few pennies here and there to have a beautiful stadium and Major League Baseball…….no problem with it at all.

[DHonks]

Some posters on here may be too young to remember Petak changing his vote. I was in middle school, and went to bed crying after the vote failed twice. While I don’t like like corporate welfare, it happens every day in all parts of the country. What’s unique is that in the case of the Brewers, we get to enjoy them for much of the year because of this example of corporate welfare. I didn’t want the stadium tax to go away, I wanted it to continue to build a reserve for future sports, arts, and other civic ventures.

[Jopal78]

But there is part where you are incorrect however. The Stadium District is the landlord and the Brewers are the tenant. Because the stadium district is a quasi-government entity it most assuredly is impossible for them as the landlord to "fail to live up to their part of the contract they agreed to with the team". To suggest otherwise means the stadium district breached their lease agreement with the Brewers, which is nonsense.

 

Not sure why the need for the condescension. The whole purpose of the study is to determine if they actually have the funds to live up to their part of the agreement with the Brewers as it is currently funded. Not sure why you're choosing to interpret the wording of a correct statement that simply omitted the 'as currently funded' part to spin it something that wasn't said.

 

And that's the issue that seems to be problematic with how this narrative is being spun, apparently by the JS and bloggers- the Brewers haven't and won't ask the taxpayers for anything. They will probably, however, ask the stadium district to meet the terms of their lease, as ANY tenet would of their landlord. Then the stadium district will have to obtain the funding if they're short, or they'll be non-compliant with the lease.

 

But you’re still incorrect. I don’t think there has been any suggestion the Brewers can force the Stadium District to spend money they don’t have, and would not make sense anyways since the Stadium District can’t simply restart taxing the 5 counties because they want to.

 

There is zero chance, none, the Stadium District breaches their lease with the Brewers; even if they don’t do anything but keep the stadium operational for major league games. Based on what has been reported since the tax ended, I’m not even sure to what extent the Stadium District is responsible for maintenance or improvements at American Family Field.

[BrewCrewForever]

Of all the taxes that I pay this one bothered me the least.

 

A few pennies here and there to have a beautiful stadium and Major League Baseball…….no problem with it at all.

 

My thought exactly. I would gladly do it again if that is what it takes to keep my Brewers in Milwaukee. Sure, it would be nice if Mark A and his group paid for all this out of pocket. But, you know they won't. So if I have to shell out a little extra $$ for my favorite pastime that keeps me entertained. So be it.

[owbc]

The one advantage to the state-of-the-art clause is that the stadium is in really excellent condition at this point in its life. The Brewers have no leverage if they wanted to bargain for a replacement at the end of their lease. What would you ask for in a new stadium that the current one doesn’t have? That wasn’t the case in Arlington (roof) or Atlanta (location).

 

If I were the stadium district I would just give the stadium to the Brewers for free at the end of the lease. But given that stadiums are money pits, I doubt the Brewers would want control of it. That’s the part that is pretty messed up if you think about it. Because other teams are getting a better deal than using a stadium for free.

[Axman59]

If our elected officials hand Attanasio more money, they are even more stupid than I think they are, which is saying a lot. How much revenue does MLB take in annually? Not one more penny from Wisconsin taxpayers. Not a single one.

 

 

I'm right there with you. I'd rather the Brewers leave than to spend one more penny of taxpayer money. Let some other city empty their coffers for a team with an estimated value of over a billion dollars and an owner with an estimated net worth of $700 million.

[PeaveyFury]

But you’re still incorrect. I don’t think there has been any suggestion the Brewers can force the Stadium District to spend money they don’t have, and would not make sense anyways since the Stadium District can’t simply restart taxing the 5 counties because they want to.

 

I’d suggest reading up on the actual terms of the lease before calling something incorrect, because the Brewers actually can force them to spend money because of the state of the art clause.

[sveumrules]

Sure, I'd prefer if the Brewers & all other wealthy corporate entities paid their own way for everything, but until the workers of the world unite & take over that is an unrealistic preference.

 

As long as we are operating under the pay to play system I'd rather those subsidies go to the Brewers (who in addition to providing entertainment have a long history of community involvement) than say someone like FoxConn or whoever.

 

How has the taxpayers ROI on a relatively small tax for the Brewers compared to their ROI for much larger taxes they've paid to subsidize other corporate entities over the years?

[stalton]

Was the initial budget proposal of 150M + 150M that grossly underestimated?

[djoctagone]

Sure, it would be nice if Mark A and his group paid for all this out of pocket. But, you know they won't.

the phoenix city council would tell you otherwise.