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

[GGGG]

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.

I actually agree with this.  If the Bucks left Milwaukee, I doubt the city would be worse off.  Some entertainment venues near the BC might be...but the city as a whole would be just fine.

In fact it might just help the Brewers if the local business community had only one team in which to invest in.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I actually agree with this.  If the Bucks left Milwaukee, I doubt the city would be worse off.  Some entertainment venues near the BC might be...but the city as a whole would be just fine.

In fact it might just help the Brewers if the local business community had only one team in which to invest in.

The bars right next to the Bradley would hurt, but 3rd street would be fine. They do a reasonable amount of business down there anyways.

Also, I wouldn't be opposed to building a new arena if the city leased it and ultimately made some revenue off of it. Unfortunately, the standard is set so that the teams get the vast majority of the $ generated, and it's a $ loser for the city/state.

[🏀]

2002MUalum,

While I agree I don't like the overspending of tax dollars for billionaires, I don't think Herb Kohl fits this description. This isn't Mark Cuban asking for half a billion, it's one of the 'poorest' owners in the NBA.

Now he wants to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee, he can't afford an arena on his own. Does he sell ownership to investors that might move the team eventually, or does he ask the City/State for some help?

I think it's a two-way street. Owners should be ponying up money, as well as the local governments that will benefit from it as well shouldn't instantly throw the owner out on the street.

[warriorchick]

Also, I wouldn't be opposed to building a new arena if the city leased it and ultimately made some revenue off of it. Unfortunately, the standard is set so that the teams get the vast majority of the $ generated, and it's a $ loser for the city/state.

Any non-Bucks revenue a new arena would receive would simply be a shift from the existing venues, resulting in a net increase of zero.  Currently, Milwaukee can host any type of event it needs to between the Arena and the BC.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

My problem with this is that most arenas aren't financed by the owners.  Financially speaking, I'm sure there are more than a few downtown businesses that make a lot of their money on a Bucks home nights.  

Salaries have gone up over the years, but I believe that two years in a row now the salary cap in the NBA has decreased.  Also, according to David Stern, all teams should be profitable in two years due to revenue sharing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-04/nba-s-stern-says-all-teams-should-be-profitable-within-two-years.html

[Henry Sugar]

From an economics perspective, public funding of stadiums is a terrible use of money.  I'm pretty sure there's broad consensus on this point from economists.

From a Marquette perspective, public funding of stadiums is a wonderful use of money.  Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse the Bucks in their effort to get a new stadium.

[Spotcheck Billy]

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.

I thought it was because Petite balked at paying the required buy-in fee for an expansion franchise and hoped to relocate an existing team

Heck even the Green Bay Packers of the 1980s had trouble selling out the old County Stadium

hmm, then why was I only able to get my hands on a ticket 1 time and then only because it was too d@mn cold for the ticket holder from Whitefish Bay?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

My problem with this is that most arenas aren't financed by the owners.  Financially speaking, I'm sure there are more than a few downtown businesses that make a lot of their money on a Bucks home nights.  

Salaries have gone up over the years, but I believe that two years in a row now the salary cap in the NBA has decreased.  Also, according to David Stern, all teams should be profitable in two years due to revenue sharing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-04/nba-s-stern-says-all-teams-should-be-profitable-within-two-years.html

I understand that most cities are doing it.

I'm not picking on the Bucks or Herb specifically.

I've just watched the public financing over the past 20 years. When I was a kid, it was a no brainer, I wanted a team.

Now that I'm older (and probably meaner), I don't know why the public is expected to subsidize pro sports. I know there are plenty of public subsidizes out there, so maybe I should just shut up and get on board, but I just don't like the idea that we need to pay for a private businesses. If you can't afford it, it's probably not a viable business model. Simple.

I know that teams bring jobs and $ downtown, which is great.

Tax incentives for the owner? Sure.
Favorable lease? Ok.
Infrastructure paid by the state?(highways, exits, parking, etc.) Yeah.

Buying a brand new building every 20 years so an owner/league has "more revenue streams"?

I'm just not sure that is a good idea. Salaries have "leveled off", but are still too high. If you can't afford an building for your employees, your overhead is too high.

[🏀]

I thought it was because Petite balked at paying the required buy-in fee for an expansion franchise and hoped to relocate an existing team

hmm, then why was I only able to get my hands on a ticket 1 time and then only because it was too d@mn cold for the ticket holder from Whitefish Bay?

It's rumored that the buy-in fee was significantly increased by the urging of Bill Wirtz.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

2002MUalum,

While I agree I don't like the overspending of tax dollars for billionaires, I don't think Herb Kohl fits this description. This isn't Mark Cuban asking for half a billion, it's one of the 'poorest' owners in the NBA.

Now he wants to keep the Bucks in Milwaukee, he can't afford an arena on his own. Does he sell ownership to investors that might move the team eventually, or does he ask the City/State for some help?

I think it's a two-way street. Owners should be ponying up money, as well as the local governments that will benefit from it as well shouldn't instantly throw the owner out on the street.

Yea, I'm not specifically picking on Herb, but the overall pro-sports business model.

If franchises can't afford their building, then their model sucks. Simple.

If they are just blackmailing cities to make more $, then I'll save them some money on movers and help them pack.

I think I'm just getting older/more bitter.

[Hards Alumni]

Yea, I'm not specifically picking on Herb, but the overall pro-sports business model.

If franchises can't afford their building, then their model sucks. Simple.

If they are just blackmailing cities to make more $, then I'll save them some money on movers and help them pack.

I think I'm just getting older/more bitter.

Probably.

[🏀]

Yea, I'm not specifically picking on Herb, but the overall pro-sports business model.

If franchises can't afford their building, then their model sucks. Simple.

If they are just blackmailing cities to make more $, then I'll save them some money on movers and help them pack.

I think I'm just getting older/more bitter.

No, no. I see what you're saying.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Probably.

I just don't like the idea of tax payers subsidizing businesses with bad models. Most sports teams qualify... or at least that is what we are told when they come looking for "additional revenue streams".

If that makes me a crabby old man, then I'll start pulling my pants up a little higher.

For the record, one of the few subsidizes I do support is technology and development because I feel that they can stimulate the free market and ultimately quality of life for an average consumer. I just don't think $300-400 million dollars in a downtown Milwaukee stadium qualifies for me.

/yanks pants up higher.

[🏀]

/yanks pants up higher.

[MU82]

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.

It very rarely comes down to one of these guys being able to afford something. It's more about them choosing not to afford it because the taxpayers will afford it for them. Even if Kohl is a relatively "poor" owner, as one earlier poster said, he's got plenty -- and he's got plenty of CEO and other rich friends who could help him with private financing if he so chose to go that route. It's not as if Reisdorf/Wirtz paid for the United Center out of their own wallets; they enlisted their rich buddies.

Carl Pohlad was one of the richest men in the world, a guy who built his fortune by fleecing poor people. Yet as Twins owner, he almost always cheaped out on players, he repeatedly threatened to move the team and he even offered to let them cease to exist (when contraction was all the rage). When it came time to build a new ballpark, rather than ponying up a little money so it could be domed, he cheaped out again, took every cent he could from the taxpayers and got a lovely (albeit impractical in Minny's inclement weather) ballpark. Then he died and, I believe, became the first person since King Tut to take his riches with him into the grave.

They aren't all as bad as Pohlad, thank goodness, but most have Pohladian tendencies. They are prime examples of fiscal ultraconservatives who have no problem living off the taxpayer tit when it suits their needs.

[Benny B]

It's rumored that the buy-in fee was significantly increased by the urging of Bill Wirtz.

Actually, that part is more truth than rumor.  The real rumor in the story is that the urging by Bill Wirtz to up the fee was instigated by the Esposito brothers.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

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.

+1

I wonder if part of the reason people might have more animosity toward an NBA franchise than an NFL franchise is that it seems pretty assured that only 3-4 teams in the league matter on a regular basis, or ever win the championship, and the rest of the league merely serves as competitive fodder for those few teams. I can't speak for most sports fans, but I would not mind if the NBA got the message that most fans are tired of putting up with the oligopolistic reigning franchises, the seven figure salaries and egos, etc. by freely telling NBA owners and teams that they won't put up public financing for an overall crappy product.

[🏀]

It's not as if Reisdorf/Wirtz paid for the United Center out of their own wallets; they enlisted their rich buddies.

If they received some cash, the United Center may have been in a much better location instead of the craphole it sits now.

[GGGG]

The NBA isn't going to get any sort of "message" from Milwaukee when their television ratings are high and other cities have perfectly good stadiums to which the Bucks could move.  You may think they have a "crappy product," but the rating suggest otherwise.

[Dawson Rental]

If they received some cash, the United Center may have been in a much better location instead of the craphole it sits now.

I live in Chicago, and I have no idea where this would have been.  Hoffman Estates?

[🏀]

I live in Chicago, and I have no idea where this would have been.  Hoffman Estates?

Near South Side.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

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.

Not true.  They demolished the Civic Center to build the X.  There was talk of cutting off the top very early on but it was quickly abandoned.

[warthog-driver]

Any non-Bucks revenue a new arena would receive would simply be a shift from the existing venues, resulting in a net increase of zero.  Currently, Milwaukee can host any type of event it needs to between the Arena and the BC.

Unless the new venue increases traffic then that uptick would represent potential incremental spend. This did happen with Camden Yards, for instance.

[warriorchick]

Unless the new venue increases traffic then that uptick would represent potential incremental spend. This did happen with Camden Yards, for instance.

So you are saying that more people will come to see, say, Nickelback  if it is at a new arena instead of the BC.  Otherwise, you would be assuming a new venue would hold more people (not really the issue here).  Then it would only apply to the rare event that would have sold out the BC.

[warthog-driver]

I live in Chicago, and I have no idea where this would have been.  Hoffman Estates?

Shermer, IL