Herb Kohl says it's time for a replacement for the BC

[brewcity77]

Also, the Bucks leaving wouldn't get Milwaukee a NHL franchise. The reason we don't have a NHL team is because the Blackhawks didn't want another team moving in on their market. Maybe with the old man passing their thoughts on that have changed, but already having a winter sports team was not the reason we didn't get a NHL team after the BC was built.

[dgies9156]

If a new stadium is not in the works over the next 5 years they will be in Las Vegas. [/ noSatan will be wearing earmuffs LONG before Las Vegas gets an NBA team.

Until Nevada outlaws sports betting, no professional team will move to Las Vegas, period. Besides, Las Vegas is the city sub-prime made famous. It will be years before that city is back on its feet. The only money there is coming from out of town.

[martyconlonontherun]

If a new stadium is not in the works over the next 5 years they will be in Las Vegas. [/ noSatan will be wearing earmuffs LONG before Las Vegas gets an NBA team.

Until Nevada outlaws sports betting, no professional team will move to Las Vegas, period. Besides, Las Vegas is the city sub-prime made famous. It will be years before that city is back on its feet. The only money there is coming from out of town.

The nba has a great relation with the nba. They hosted the all star game a few years back and have become the premier summer league with around 20teams participating in it. The money wouldn't come from the city but rather more from the casinos. I think lv will get stronger as the economy does over the next few years.

[jsglow]

Also, the Bucks leaving wouldn't get Milwaukee a NHL franchise. The reason we don't have a NHL team is because the Blackhawks didn't want another team moving in on their market. Maybe with the old man passing their thoughts on that have changed, but already having a winter sports team was not the reason we didn't get a NHL team after the BC was built.

No doubt the Blackhawks had something to do with it at the time but I think they'd be hard pressed to 'control' the MKE market going forward.  They are not on TV or radio up there and have close to zero fan base.  The #1 reason that there's no NHL franchise in MKE is that the winter pro sports slot is already taken.  It doesn't make sense from a dollars standpoint until that slot is vacated and will make perfect sense if it ever becomes available.  And the Blackhawks will complain but that will be lost on deaf ears.

And I agree that Vegas is a viable destination.  Frankly, NBA basketball is probably the only pro sport possible out there as the  minor league baseball team (AAA Las Vegas 51s) has a very poor following.

[Litehouse]

So there you have it -- Herbie Math 101 subtitled, "We aint going anywhere!"

The problem is that it won't be Herb that moves the team, they'll stay here as long as he's the owner.  But he's 77 and the team is going to change ownership soon one way or another, and the new owners will have the moving trucks packed up overnight.  I think the entire point of the debate is that they need this arena issue cleared up before new owners come in and it's too late.

New owners would be fine moving the team to a similar sized market (KC, Nashville, Las Vegas, Raleigh, Louisville, etc.), even if it's just to get the temporary bump as a novelty.  Then they could buy low, sell high.

[jsglow]

New owners would be fine moving the team to a similar sized market (KC, Nashville, Las Vegas, Raleigh, Louisville, etc.), even if it's just to get the temporary bump as a novelty.  Then they could buy low, sell high.

KC, Nashville and Vegas are all larger and more prosperous than MKE.  Very few (if any) cities the size of Milwaukee have 3 major pro sports teams.  (Yes, I'm including the Packers.)  Nashville didn't have any until about 10-15 years ago.  Louisville probably isn't a viable option but Cincinnati might me.  I'm sure there are others as well.

[Hards Alumni]

The Bucks aren't going anywhere.  Kohl said he wouldn't let the team move.

[Hards Alumni]

Well said. What is wrong with the BC? The fact it lacks daily access retail/dining and luxury boxes? That's hardly sufficient for tearing down a good facility. Or, more to the point, tearing down a good facility so the taxpayers can build a replacement that will improve earnings performance for the Bucks.

Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.

[jsglow]

Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.

No doubt it is probably the weakest NBA arena.

[augoman]

Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.

were all those studies commissioned by the Bucks or the group opposed to a new facility?

[jsglow]

Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.

I suppose the real bottom line question is if Milwaukee is unsuitable for an NBA franchise, long term.

[warthog-driver]

I suppose the real bottom line question is if Milwaukee is unsuitable for an NBA franchise, long term.

Where is Wes Pavalon when you need him?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Every study done on the BC says that it is financially unsuitable for an NBA franchise.

You mean like the studies sponsored by Bud Selig at UWM which showed a net economic contribution to local communities that publicly finance sports stadiums/arenas?

[dgies9156]

I suppose the real bottom line question is if Milwaukee is unsuitable for an NBA franchise, long term.

There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.

But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium

[Warriors10]

There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.

But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium

They were good in 2001.  One Glenn Robinson missed layup in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals away from the NBA Finals.

[🏀]

There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.

Milwaukee and their fans deserve something better than the worst NBA stadium, and I don't care about the Bucks.

However, there is some good in your post. Milwaukee does not need the Barclays, United Center or AmericanAirlines Arena.

I'm not an expert on NBA/NHL stadium minimums, but a 16,000-17,000 seat stadium with a design emphasis for basketball seating isn't asking for much. While elminating seats, luxury boxes can be doubled. Commercial/retail stadium development would be huge. Look at Miller Park and Friday's, Wisconsin people eat that crap up. The Courtside Club is also a huge joke compared to what people spend to get that access.

Knock the BC and it's parking structure down. Develop the entire footprint into a smaller, but fan-friendlier stadium. Build a new (and better) parking structure in the Park West footprint.

$150 million later, downtown Milwaukee has a new gem. The new stadium will help develop the area surrounding the BC, towards the Park Freeway and ultimately closer to the east side and the river.

[augoman]

Where is Wes Pavalon when you need him?

I can still picture him jumping for joy when Milwaukee won the lottery and got first pick-with which he chose Lew Alcindor.  What great talent he assembled on early teams.  Man, Oscar Robertson was a thrill to watch.

[4everwarriors]

Where is Wes Pavalon when you need him?
[/quote

On the wrong side of the grass

[Benny B]

You mean like the studies sponsored by Bud Selig at UWM which showed a net economic contribution to local communities that publicly finance sports stadiums/arenas?

Someone please cite the "economic" studies for and against publicly financed stadia.

[Hards Alumni]

There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.

But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium

What helps franchises weather the bad years it the revenue the building creates when attendance is down.  Milwaukee is nothing like Nashville. If you put a decent team on the floor they will come.  A lot of cities can't even say that. 

Part of the problem is that Milwaukee has front office issues.  They overspend on crappy players.  You know, Michael Redd and pretty much anyone they have traded for in the last 10 years.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

One other thought -- where are the Bucks going to go? Here's a rundown of why they are staying put:

1) Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Kansas City -- Varying degrees of quality arenas, all of which are used by NHL or College Basketball teams. There is no way any of these markets are better than Milwaukee. None of them have a better television market and Herb would move from one small market to another.

2) Nashville, TN -- A growing city with a relatively new, skyboxes to the hilt arena. But Nashville barely kept the Predators and if you have a bad team in Nashville, you won't draw period. Plus it's a long commute from the core area of support in Williamson County to downtown.

3) Seattle -- This is the ace in the hole. However, their arena situation was the reason the Supersonics moved to Oklahoma City. It's far worse than anything in Milwaukee. Until Seattle builds a replacement for the Key Arena, nothing is possible here.

4) San Diego -- See Seattle, only worse. There's a good reason why the Clippers left town to be Second Banana to the Lakers!

So there you have it -- Herbie Math 101 subtitled, "We aint going anywhere!"

Here in Connecticut, they would like to lure an NHL team back (or a possible NBA team).  There's a $95mil plan out there to refurbish the XL Center to make it pro-sports worthy rather than build a new $250-$300mil arena.  The state is not biting on either yet due to current fiscal reasons.  The thought is the XL Center due to age needs to be upgraded for UConn men's & women's basketball at some point anyway.  UConn is also supposedly upgrading their hockey program to join Hockey East and the on campus rink won't work for the upgrade.

I heard St. Paul, MN refurbished the arena for the then expansion Wild by basically cutting the top off the existing arena and building from there because it was far cheaper than building a new arena.

[GGGG]

There you go. I hate to say it but that's at the core of the issue. The Arena we have is fine for the team we have and the town we have. And if the Bucks suddenly became the Miami Heat, we might have an issue.

But the reality is that the Bucks have not been good since the 1980s and the prospects for 19,000 persons a night look bleak until they are. Milwaukee IS like Nashville. Both have trouble supporting a loser big time. Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium

I have trouble with the Milwaukee has trouble supporting a loser tag.  I think Milwaukee has been pretty loyal to its professional teams considering the decades of incompetence that all three have been through over the last 40 years.

And the reason the Packers didn't sell out County Stadium is because it was an awful football venue.  Those same ticket holders have no problem driving up to Green Bay. 

[MU82]

I have lived in cities/states that have been at the brink of these kinds of decisions and have closely followed several other similar situations. It always comes down to one thing:

How important are professional sports (or a particular professional sports franchise) for the image of the city? How badly do you want to retain your standing as a big-league-sports town?

If a city's (or state's) residents ultimately vote against these kind of arena projects and then the team moves, the residents have made both financial and quality-of-life decisions. Maybe they decide (and it's hard to argue this), that their local schools need their money more than the billionaire team owner does. But when that decision is made, they have to live with it and agree they played a part in their team's departure.

When I lived in the Twin Cities, the owner of the North Stars asked the state for a few million dollars and a little bit of land to connect the Met Center -- an excellent arena, by the way -- to the new Mall of America. Residents, through their elected officials, denied the request. The owner moved the team to Dallas and was vilified. A few years later, the public ponied up significantly more money to build the Wild's arena and bring the NHL back.

Cleveland got the NFL back; Los Angeles didn't. Charlotte kept an NBA team (of sorts); Seattle is going without. Atlanta got another crack at the NHL; it's hard to believe it will get a third team. Would Milwaukee ever get a shot at another NBA team if the Bucks left? Highly doubtful.

Yes, it sucks that taxpayers have to give billionaires money for arenas. Sadly, with very few exceptions, that's how the game is played. If you don't give the money, another city/state will. It's a national shell game, of sorts.

I don't blame any municipality's citizens for refusing to fund arenas because there are indeed many better uses for public funds. I only say that if you do refuse, you basically are holding the door open for the team to leave and have to be ready to live with the consequences.

I'm not sure if Seattle's collective psyche is still hurting about the Sonics' departure or if that is a distant, inconsequential memory.

[Hards Alumni]

I have lived in cities/states that have been at the brink of these kinds of decisions and have closely followed several other similar situations. It always comes down to one thing:

How important are professional sports (or a particular professional sports franchise) for the image of the city? How badly do you want to retain your standing as a big-league-sports town?

If a city's (or state's) residents ultimately vote against these kind of arena projects and then the team moves, the residents have made both financial and quality-of-life decisions. Maybe they decide (and it's hard to argue this), that their local schools need their money more than the billionaire team owner does. But when that decision is made, they have to live with it and agree they played a part in their team's departure.

When I lived in the Twin Cities, the owner of the North Stars asked the state for a few million dollars and a little bit of land to connect the Met Center -- an excellent arena, by the way -- to the new Mall of America. Residents, through their elected officials, denied the request. The owner moved the team to Dallas and was vilified. A few years later, the public ponied up significantly more money to build the Wild's arena and bring the NHL back.

Cleveland got the NFL back; Los Angeles didn't. Charlotte kept an NBA team (of sorts); Seattle is going without. Atlanta got another crack at the NHL; it's hard to believe it will get a third team. Would Milwaukee ever get a shot at another NBA team if the Bucks left? Highly doubtful.

Yes, it sucks that taxpayers have to give billionaires money for arenas. Sadly, with very few exceptions, that's how the game is played. If you don't give the money, another city/state will. It's a national shell game, of sorts.

I don't blame any municipality's citizens for refusing to fund arenas because there are indeed many better uses for public funds. I only say that if you do refuse, you basically are holding the door open for the team to leave and have to be ready to live with the consequences.

I'm not sure if Seattle's collective psyche is still hurting about the Sonics' departure or if that is a distant, inconsequential memory.

Well said.  If you want the team to stick around you pony up the cash.  If you don't care, then vote no, but don't be surprised if you don't get a team back at a later point in time.

That is the problem with Milwaukee.  If they lose the Bucks, I doubt anyone else would come knocking any time soon.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

And the reason the Packers didn't sell out County Stadium is because it was an awful football venue.  Those same ticket holders have no problem driving up to Green Bay. 

I want to agree with you, but the Packers are so far and away #1 in this state, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.

The Bucks, for better or worse, are entertainment, and compete for entertainment dollars.

The Packers are religion, and the loyalty that comes with that makes it a far different animal.

A new stadium might create a better game experience, create more revenue for the team, and lead to some success and attendance.

HOWEVER, the conservative in me doesn't really like spending $ on buildings for wealthy owners. IF Herb can't afford to build the building on his own, maybe Milwaukee shouldn't have a franchise. There are a handful of sports teams in a handful of cities that exist only because the public has subsidized them.

Salaries have gone up exponentially over the years. Instead of controlling such growth, the owners have looked to cities to provide them with additional revenue in order to stay a viable franchise.

I don't know if the public should be bailing teams out anymore. Maybe the leagues need to manage their $ a little better if they want to have 30+ teams in their league.