Kohl/Arena Discussion Page 71 - Study Released

[xTitan]

This is a HUGE PR move on Kohl and the Bucks. This week, the Bucks took a major hit in PR with announcing Skiles was going to return. It was probably the worst PR the Bucks have seen in decades! Coming out and saying he wants the Bucks to stay in Milwaukee and that he'd pitch in for the costs is a Crazy Smart PR move on his part. Kudos to Kohl and the Bucks for doing so.

Now with that said...
1) New arena goes just north of the current Bradly Center in the major lot of nothingness.
2) $75-$100 Million in Naming Rights (I don't care if its local or not...get a huge corporation to flip the bill of naming rights)
3) Kohl sells the team, becomes minority owner and commits $100 million
4) New Majority Owner commits $200 million
5) $100-$200 million in Public financing through TIF, Sin Taxes (cigaretes, alcohol, soda, fuel/oil) and a very small Sales Tax (I'm thinking .001% should get it done) as there will no doubt be improvements to the local environment and economy based on the building of a new arena.

There you go. Done deal in my mind. I really can't believe no one has mentioned the PR timing of this announcement yet. No one is talking about SKiles and the Bucks play right now...which is exactly what Kohl and the Bucks needed right now.

Sorry PP, but no new owner in his right mind is going to pay $280M for this franchise and then chip in another $200M to build an arena and keep a team in MILWAUKEE....the asset of a team and moving them is far more attractive. I could see Herbie donating $250M once the arena is built and the team has a long term lease, the $250M would come from the sale. I also believe the Sin tax would be solely for Milwaukee since the city is the only place the would benefit from a new arena.

[chuckleslove]

The interesting thing to me looking at his disclosures that he has to make as an elected official is the liabilities he has. He has been taking out loans from the NBA all the time and owes a lot of money. I would assume he is current on his payments but his liabilities almost total his assets so I don't know how much money he can toss in to a new arena.

Sure if he sold the arena he likely can pay off all of those loans and toss some money in to it, and I would assume whatever house he owns is paid free and clear and he is set for retirement but its not like he is sitting on a ton of cash to just fork over for a new arena.

[averageposter]

You would think the league could find ways to help itself out in creating loans or grants to renovate/build new arenas and of course be repaid in the same time frame that taxpayers are.

[paulpressey25]

Sorry PP, but no new owner in his right mind is going to pay $280M for this franchise and then chip in another $200M to build an arena and keep a team in MILWAUKEE

You're responding to the wrong poster. BigDog said that, I didn't.

No, the new owner isn't going to pay for the thing. We are. But if you get a $100mm plus gift from Kohl out there, and the thing is located downtown which would sell politically, at least you'd get a serious conversation going with the powers that be in Milwaukee.

[Thunder Muscle]

Clearly the Brewers are more popular than the Bucks BUT the margin where it matters (Milwaukee area) may be less than it is Statewide. I'm in the GB area and the Bucks are non existent whereas the Brewers are talked about on sports radio, bus trips everywhere, merchandise, etc. But ultimately its going to be Milwaukee that pays and/or votes on this, where I would assume the Bucks have their most popularity albeit its dwindled a bit lately.

My point is that the Brewers vs Bucks comparison may not be a huge factor.

[WEFFPIM]

I tend to agree with N8 that the timing of this is not good. Right now the MMAC has been trying to get corporate support for the Bradley Center (and hence the Bucks) and I'd guess the situation is going badly, as is most efforts for corporate support for anything in the city right now. Hence why Kohl brought this up today. i.e. the Bradley Center fiscal situation is front burner even though this hasn't been reported on much.

I'm not so sure that things are going badly for the MMAC. They said from the get go they were doing their analysis of the situation as a temporary thing. To buy time until a new building plan can be locked in, and get the Bucks some more money in the process. Maybe it's not going well because of what's essentially a sunk cost of investing in the Bucks, but I don't think it was a catalyst for Kohl to say this.

I actually think this is brilliant timing on Kohl's part for the reasons bigdog said. If anyone's talking about the Bucks right now, it's about Skiles and Hammond. There's finally some backlash from the public towards Kohl. What better way to reverse that than to not only push the new arena topic to the forefront, but actually offer up a portion of the solution?

It's not like he said that a new building will be needed, he actually provided the first step in getting one built. It's not a specific step, and one will certainly be needed. But one little comment from Kohl is more than anyone has done so far in this debacle.

[Badgerlander]

The Brewers play 81 local games and averaged far higher attendance on a per-game and per-season basis. They probably have a lot more casual and hardcore fans over a wider area, and by a lot. I don't think the situations are very comparable at all.

Year/Brewers Attendance/League Average
1983/ 2,397,131/ 1,795,774 (133%)
1984/ 1,608,509/ 1,731,786 (92%)
1985/ 1,360,265/ 1,875,680 (72.5%)
1986/ 1,265,041/ 1,861,123 (68%)
1987/ 1,909,244/ 2,061,180 (92.6%)
1988/ 1,923,238/ 2,041,606 (94.2%)
1989/ 1,970,735/ 2,110,320 (93.4%)
1990/ 1,752,900/ 2,040,959 (86%)
1991/ 1,478,729/ 2,058,014 (72%)
1992/ 1,857,351/ 2,009,261 (92.4%)
1993/ 1,688,080/ 2,637,470 (64%)
1994/ 1,268,399/ 1,843,416 (69%)
1995/ 1,087,560/ 1,793,589 (61%)
1996/ 1,327,155/ 2,169,949 (61%)

Year/ Bucks Attendance
2002-03/ 665,966 (86.8)
03-04/ 690,180 (89.9)
04-05/ 637,009 (83)
05-06/ 681,337 (88.8)
06-07/ 663,629 (86.5)
07-08/ 639,421 (83.3)
08-09/ 630,976 (82.2)
09-10/ 619,453 (80.7)
10-11/ 631,910 (82.3)
11-12/ 485,717 (78.6)

[EastSideBucksFan]

I tend to agree with N8 that the timing of this is not good. Right now the MMAC has been trying to get corporate support for the Bradley Center (and hence the Bucks) and I'd guess the situation is going badly, as is most efforts for corporate support for anything in the city right now. Hence why Kohl brought this up today. i.e. the Bradley Center fiscal situation is front burner even though this hasn't been reported on much.

I'm not so sure that things are going badly for the MMAC. They said from the get go they were doing their analysis of the situation as a temporary thing. To buy time until a new building plan can be locked in, and get the Bucks some more money in the process. Maybe it's not going well because of what's essentially a sunk cost of investing in the Bucks, but I don't think it was a catalyst for Kohl to say this.

I actually think this is brilliant timing on Kohl's part for the reasons bigdog said. If anyone's talking about the Bucks right now, it's about Skiles and Hammond. There's finally some backlash from the public towards Kohl. What better way to reverse that than to not only push the new arena topic to the forefront, but actually offer up a portion of the solution?

It's not like he said that a new building will be needed, he actually provided the first step in getting one built. It's not a specific step, and one will certainly be needed. But one little comment from Kohl is more than anyone has done so far in this debacle.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/14 ... ewestfirst

The president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce says his group is optimistic that major local corporations will commit to raising sponsorship support for the Bradley Center, a move he said was a significant first step towards a new facility.

MMAC president Timothy Sheehy said in an interview that a group that includes Bradley Center and Milwaukee Bucks representatives had been meeting with corporations to convince them to raise sponsorship support beginning this summer or the beginning of the Bucks' regular season. He said he hoped a formal announcement of the financial commitment could come in a month or so.

"It's fair to say that this effort is aimed at raising support in the business community to improve the financial position of the Bradley Center," Sheehy said. "We also recognize that if the Bradley Center isn't healthy from a financial standpoint it won't be in a position to sign a market-rate lease with the Bucks."

Sheehy declined to say what companies his group was talking to, but said the financial support was well over $6 million.

"I've got a lot of optimism in this regard," Sheehy said. "And this will help put Milwaukee on a path that we need to be on. I am also cognizant that this turns over the hourglass on a new facility.

"It's the first brick in the road to a new facility."

[WEFFPIM]

My point is that the Brewers vs Bucks comparison may not be a huge factor.

I think the city would be better off attacking the new building topic to the public in a broader scope. It's not just a Bucks arena. It's a Marquette arena. It's an Admirals arena. It's a brand new state-of-the-art facility for shows and concerts.

If the Bucks can get Marquette on board with this, it would be huge. Not necessarily financially, but vocally support a new building, it would go a long way to help public opinion. While the Admirals have a devoted fan base, it's way too small to make an impact. But the Admirals will certainly support a new building.

[Badgerlander]

My point is that the Brewers vs Bucks comparison may not be a huge factor.

I think the city would be better off attacking the new building topic to the public in a broader scope. It's not just a Bucks arena. It's a Marquette arena. It's an Admirals arena. It's a brand new state-of-the-art facility for shows and concerts.

If the Bucks can get Marquette on board with this, it would be huge. Not necessarily financially, but vocally support a new building, it would go a long way to help public opinion. While the Admirals have a devoted fan base, it's way too small to make an impact. But the Admirals will certainly support a new building.

I think the BC is perfect for the Admirals, I want the new Arena to be Basketball specific. If we build it near Miller Park great, but if it's downtown tear down the old MECCA/Cell and build a new Arena but keep the BC for the Admirals etc.

[WEFFPIM]

My point is that the Brewers vs Bucks comparison may not be a huge factor.

I think the city would be better off attacking the new building topic to the public in a broader scope. It's not just a Bucks arena. It's a Marquette arena. It's an Admirals arena. It's a brand new state-of-the-art facility for shows and concerts.

If the Bucks can get Marquette on board with this, it would be huge. Not necessarily financially, but vocally support a new building, it would go a long way to help public opinion. While the Admirals have a devoted fan base, it's way too small to make an impact. But the Admirals will certainly support a new building.

I think the BC is perfect for the Admirals, I want the new Arena to be Basketball specific. If we build it near Miller Park great, but if it's downtown tear down the old MECCA/Cell and build a new Arena but keep the BC for the Admirals etc.

What would be the point of having two 18,000 seat arenas in this city when one of them is used for a minor league hockey team that doesn't open the upper deck?

You can build a hybrid arena without having it as poorly designed as the BC is. Meanwhile, MECCA is perfect for the Wave, UWM and smaller shows.

I guess I forgot about the Mustangs in all of this. But then again, how couldn't I?

[El Duderino]

Shouldn't owners be expected to pay for a new arena? I'm sick of teams holding cities hostage and then gouging the fans at every opportunity once the ransom is paid.

[Badgerlander]

I think the BC is perfect for the Admirals, I want the new Arena to be Basketball specific. If we build it near Miller Park great, but if it's downtown tear down the old MECCA/Cell and build a new Arena but keep the BC for the Admirals etc.

What would be the point of having two 18,000 seat arenas in this city when one of them is used for a minor league hockey team that doesn't open the upper deck?

You can build a hybrid arena without having it as poorly designed as the BC is. Meanwhile, MECCA is perfect for the Wave, UWM and smaller shows.

I guess I forgot about the Mustangs in all of this. But then again, how couldn't I?

I love the MECCA and all, lots of great memories, but it's a dump these days. It was built in 1950, bulldoze it. I've hated the layout of the BC for basketball since they built it, and as much as I like the Kohl Center, lets build an Arena designed for Basketball. Not that I really believe its ever going to get built.

[El Duderino]

They weren't as beloved as they are now, but I think they were more beloved pre MP than the Bucks are right now.

The other very key aspect is that the economy was significantly better during the time of the Miller Park debate. No way could Miller Park get built by taxpayers in today's economy.

Professional sports owners in the three major sports owners were very lucky that the economy was so great in the 90's when so many of those taxpayer paid stadiums/arenas were able to pass and then get built.

The economy was swimming in money and thus lots of people were willing to fund stadium/arena projects when teams held guns to the heads of numerous cities. Today though, most of those cities would instead tell teams to build it yourself or take a hike because the money just isn't there.

[Nowak008]

I know the Miller Park bill was controversal at the time, but is there anyone that still cares about that anymore? I think a lot of people look at Miller Park are happy and proud that it is there. Maybe the Bucks plans for a building aren't as doomed as people think. I'm sure people would freak out if taxes are raised, thought there are other options the gov can do.

[WEFFPIM]

I think the BC is perfect for the Admirals, I want the new Arena to be Basketball specific. If we build it near Miller Park great, but if it's downtown tear down the old MECCA/Cell and build a new Arena but keep the BC for the Admirals etc.

What would be the point of having two 18,000 seat arenas in this city when one of them is used for a minor league hockey team that doesn't open the upper deck?

You can build a hybrid arena without having it as poorly designed as the BC is. Meanwhile, MECCA is perfect for the Wave, UWM and smaller shows.

I guess I forgot about the Mustangs in all of this. But then again, how couldn't I?

I love the MECCA and all, lots of great memories, but it's a dump these days. It was built in 1950, bulldoze it. I've hated the layout of the BC for basketball since they built it, and as much as I like the Kohl Center, lets build an Arena designed for Basketball. Not that I really believe its ever going to get built.

Having the Admirals be the primary tenant of the Bradley Center would be a horrendous business decision.

Take a look at the layouts for the Spurs and Rockets buildings. They both have ice rinks underneath the court. You don't necessarily need the octagon the BC is or the oval a place like the United Center is.

[crkone]

UWM is planning to build an on campus arena right now. Down the list is the plan to buy the Cell if it is cheap enough to buy and renovate.
EDIT: Right now as in they are planning and studying the build and where to do it.

[El Duderino]

I know the Miller Park bill was controversal at the time, but is there anyone that still cares about that anymore? I think a lot of people look at Miller Park are happy and proud that it is there. Maybe the Bucks plans for a building aren't as doomed as people think. I'm sure people would freak out if taxes are raised, thought there are other options the gov can do.

Read my post above

The economy during the Miller Park debate and today are completely different worlds. Absolutely no chance could Miller Park get passed and paid for by taxpayers with government in such tight financial situations.

[Thunder Muscle]

I'm pretty sure Walker already publically said the Bucks would not get any State help for an Arena. So you can eliminate that pretty much.

I agree that a new Arena and keeping the BC doesn't make much sense. Besides maybe selling the BC to Marquette, its too big for everything else. And Marquette will want in on the new building probably. But will they tear down "the gift" from the Pettit family? No way that building can be kept for the Admirals. And all of the "big" concerts will go to the new arena. I don't know who remains from the Pettit family in the area, but I would have to think you'd tear it down.

[Badgerlander]

Having the Admirals be the primary tenant of the Bradley Center would be a horrendous business decision.

Take a look at the layouts for the Spurs and Rockets buildings. They both have ice rinks underneath the court. You don't necessarily need the octagon the BC is or the oval a place like the United Center is.

So you want to keep a 62 year old arena over a 24 year old arena because it holds 4,000 less people?