NHL for Milwaukee?

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/01/27/nhl...anders-rivalry

Has this been discussed before?

I would be shocked, though one big block to the Pettit attempt was Old Man Wirtz in Chicago. Not sure Rocky would have the same issues. That would have to be explored. As it mentions, there'd also have to be an investor. Might be more likely to get a team to move here than to start one anew. Depends on if someone was willing to do that. If you could get a commitment soon (seems unlikely) another investor could finalize any needs for arena funding.

That said, one of the issues with the BC is that it's used primarily as a basketball venue but designed for hockey. How well would a hockey arena fit into a venue designed for basketball? Would they have to remove seating when the ice was out?

It would be awesome to have an NHL team in Milwaukee, and I think a perspective team could reallly click with the city (and honestly believe an NHL team to be a better cultural fit then the NBA). However, this article is basically idle speculation that I could have talking with friends.

Yeah, I'd love an NHL franchise, but this article is pure speculation. It's being done in other cities where NHL teams share homes with NBA teams, I don't think that would be a hurdle, you can make a basketball first arena that can be adopted for Hockey, the issue with the BC is it was built for Hockey first...

Blackhawks would block it.

I'm a season ticket holder, I'm not sure Hawks would block it. They are going to add 2 teams in the west, one in each division. If u are hawks so you want to travel to Seattle 2-3 times per year or Milwaukee. This is about TV rev and franchise fee. Not about ticket rev. I think it will be Vegas and Quebec. But I'm not convinced wirtz would block it. Hawks need another natural geography rivalry. We lost det last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MU/Panther

Blackhawks would block it.

---

Not so sure about that any more. It was Old Man Bill Wirtz that blocked out before. The same guy that didn't want Blackhawks games televised because it would cut into his attendance numbers. Since his son Rocky took over the 'Hawks have been much more forward thinking. I heard that part of the reason they didn't want Milwaukee to have a franchise was because Bill believed it would cut into their sales and revenue.

Rocky may actually see another local rival as a good thing. Give their fans a road game in driving distance and draw more Milwaukee hockey fans down to the UC for road games. I don't presume to know how Rocky thinks, but just because the Blackhawks blocked Milwaukee two decades ago doesn't mean they would today. Things are radically different there now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"

Not so sure about that any more. It was Old Man Bill Wirtz that blocked out before. The same guy that didn't want Blackhawks games televised because it would cut into his attendance numbers. Since his son Rocky took over the 'Hawks have been much more forward thinking. I heard that part of the reason they didn't want Milwaukee to have a franchise was because Bill believed it would cut into their sales and revenue.

Rocky may actually see another local rival as a good thing. Give their fans a road game in driving distance and draw more Milwaukee hockey fans down to the UC for road games. I don't presume to know how Rocky thinks, but just because the Blackhawks blocked Milwaukee two decades ago doesn't mean they would today. Things are radically different there now.

---

It's hard to believe that Rocky is Bill's offspring - their mindset could not be more different. Blackhawks' organization was almost at the very bottom of all the major 4 sports and now they are near the top and a real fun team to watch and cheer for - a real professional organization. Only problem it is a real tough ticket now. Me and 3 buddies would go to at least one game a year - have a nice Italian dinner on Taylor Street and head to the game. Going to our first game in years on the 9th. Unfortunately, not against any of the other original 6, but beggars can't be choosers.

The article brings up a good point. Can Milwaukee sustain 2 major league winter sport teams? I know it's about TV dollars, but there is still a big corporate responsibility to back the team to buy up the suites/high priced tickets.

As a basketball loving hockey dad, I love the Admirals. Good enough quality of play and you can sit on the glass for $30-$40. Also not that it's a huge deal, but most hockey players in SE wisconsin are all about the blackhawks. There's some Admiral gear and Wild gear out there, but it's minimal compared to Blackhawks stuff. At a minimum, I can see Milwaukee cutting into their merchandising.

I don't think the NHL is a better cultural fit than the NBA in Milwaukee. Milwaukee has shown that if you provide the city with a quality NBA product, they will turn out. Furthermore Marquette has huge attendance for a private school. If the Admiral attendance is any indication, while hockey is still growing in the city, it has a long way to go.

I think the only way Milwaukee gets an NHL franchise is if Nashville moves to Milwaukee. Owned by the Racine Johnson family.

Nashville currently ranks 21st out of 30 NHL teams in average home attendance. While 21st may not sound great, an average of 16,775 per game is pretty strong, and not a typical candidate for a move. Also, I remember Leipold said not too long ago how great the city has been to the franchise. And where is there stadium located? On the same street as the famous Nashville Bar scene and.....

Across the street from the Music City Center....
Kitty Corner from the Country Music Hall of Fame & Museum....
Across the street from Hall of Fame Park....
Only one block from the Symphony Center....

Yeah, let's put the new arena two blocks farther away from everything than it already is.

Ok, now to get back to the point, I don't think Milwaukee will get an NHL franchise nor do I think Milwaukee can support an NHL franchise. I think this is all being blown out of proportion because Seattle says Milwaukee eliminated their chance at an NHL team. Why? Because Milwaukee is building a new stadium for the Bucks. Seattle was hoping we would fail, they would get the Bucks and build a stadium that would house an NBA team and eventually an NHL team. With no NBA, Seattle won't have the funds to build a stadium so they will get shut out from NHL.

Also, as I said earlier, I don't believe that Wirtz blocked Milwaukee, I think Lloyd Pettit told the NHL to get bent when they required a $60 million franchise fee when an entire franchise was sold for $15 million just two years earlier.

It was also Lloyd and Jane's belief, in addition to the cost, that they would endure a lot of losing with an expansion franchise and they were getting older and didn't want to deal with it. They wanted an existing franchise.

Support in this city boils down to one thing, winning. This city will support a winner, when the Bucks were winning back in the day people showed up, the Brewers started winning and attendance rose, when Marquette was top 25 year in and year out we got great attendance numbers... If an NHL team comes here and has reasonable success they will draw people, if they don't? Well then it will fail.

Biggest problem with NHL in Milwaukee is ticket prices. They don't have the massive TV contracts that the other sports have, so it trickles down to the ticket prices.

Look at the Blackhawks....
$18,040 ($410 a game) for 100-level platinum seats
$8,140 ($185) for 100-level prime seats
$6,160 ($140) for 100-level seats
$6,500 which includes a $1,000 annual premium ($125) for 200-level prime seats
$5,840 which includes a $1,000 annual premium ($110) for 200-level seats
$3,470 ($85) for 300-level Tier 1 seats
$2,869 ($65) for 300-level Tier 2 seats
$1,848 ($42) for 300-level Tier 3 seats.

Will be tough to get Milwaukeeans to pony up the cash for an 82 game season?

I believe the Blackhawks are one of the pricier tickets, though. Winning 2 titles in the past few years along with sustained success allow you to do that. I think the Nashville Predators are probably a better comparison to what Milwaukee would charge:

$5,248 ($128 per game) for All-Inclusive Seating
$3,813 ($93 per game) for Premium Lower Bowl
$3,362 ($82 per game) for Standard Lower Bowl
$2,747 ($67 per game) for Lower Bowl Tier 3
$2,050 ($50 per game) for Upper Level Tier 1
$1,476 ($36 per game) for Upper Level Tier 2
$1,189 ($29 per game) for Upper Level Tier 3
$615 ($15 per game) for Upper Level Tier 4

That's not much pricier than Marquette tickets for more than twice as many games. Further, they offer 2-season packages for better discounts or half-season packages for more affordable plans. I think the NHL would be viable here. Chicago is one of the premium franchises in the league and also in a top-3 market. Expectations for an expansion franchise here can't possibly be compared to that.

If the Bucks move, the NHL will come. Bucks stay, no NHL. Its pretty simply. Not enough corporate cash to support two winter sports teams.

I believe the NHL franchise fee was $30 or $33 million, when the Pettits backed out. Given the CBA at the time, there was no way a team in Milwaukee would have been financially successful. I don't remember the Blackhawks being more than a minor issue. Under the new CBA, the NHL would do do fine in Milwaukee, but for the fact that the Bucks are around.

I don't think the NHL comes to Milwaukee even if the Bucks leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

I don't think the NHL comes to Milwaukee even if the Bucks leave.

---

Much as I'd love a NHL team, I agree.

Milwaukee would be the 5th biggest city in the US without at least one of a NBA and NHL team, behind Seattle, San Diego, Cincinnati and KC. Seattle has no arena, San Diego is not getting hockey, Cincinnati has no arena, leaving Milwaukee and KC as the two favorites. Lets assume Seattle would get the Bucks. Where would the NHL expand? Maybe a second team in Toronto, but the Leafs would throw a fit. Same thing happens in Hamilton. Quebec is a probably high on the list, but it is smaller than Milwaukee. Saskatoon/Regina is still too small. Milwaukee has a corporate base used to buying boxes, etc for a winter sports team and has only one other major league sports team, the Brewers. KC has the Royals and the Chiefs, plus the city was a bust during its previously NHL experience (as well as the NBA too - had to share the team with Omaha before moving to Sacramento). I would guess Las Vegas and Milwaukee would be very high on the NHL US expansion list if the Bucks moved. If Milwaukee could manage a new arena after the Bucks moved (which everyone would agree is a pie in the sky idea), NHL expansion would be almost a given.

The NHL has succeeded in cities like Milwaukee (Columbus, Nashville, Raleigh, Tampa, Buffalo etc.), decent sized cities where there is no NBA team. Don't see that formula changing.

But if the BC is inadequate for the NBA, it will be considered inadequate for the NHL too. Kansas City at least has a new arena. And if Seattle gets an arena for the NBA, they would also get the NHL ahead of Milwaukee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

But if the BC is inadequate for the NBA, it will be considered inadequate for the NHL too. Kansas City at least has a new arena. And if Seattle gets an arena for the NBA, they would also get the NHL ahead of Milwaukee.

---

There is some truth to those statements, but part of the BCs problem is that it was build for hockey. Good hockey seats aren't the same as good bball seats. Seats that suck for bball are considered pretty good for hockey. Plus, there is around $100 million in deferred maintenance needed at the BC if a new arena isn't built and the state is on the hook for it. Pump $100 million into a hockey first venue where you will be the primary tenant and the BC starts looking like a much more interesting option.

I actually think the NHL expands by 8 in the next 20 years. Its easy money for the owners and there are a number of mid markets looking for a team. I don't see NHL owners passing on the opportunity, even if it waters down the league. KC, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, Las Vegas, Seattle, and others all want in. So, I may be more optimistic than most. If nothing else, Milwaukee is a great sports town. Brewers draw the most per capita in baseball. NFL fans drive 2 1/2 hours for a home game. MU is usually at the top of attendance for schools without football or those competing with a NBA team. Even the Bucks, who have stuck since Herb bought the team, but for a few isolated years, drew relatively well until the past 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MU88

There is some truth to those statements, but part of the BCs problem is that it was build for hockey. Good hockey seats aren't the same as good bball seats. Seats that suck for bball are considered pretty good for hockey. Plus, there is around $100 million in deferred maintenance needed at the BC if a new arena isn't built and the state is on the hook for it. Pump $100 million into a hockey first venue where you will be the primary tenant and the BC starts looking like a much more interesting option.

I actually think the NHL expands by 8 in the next 20 years. Its easy money for the owners and there are a number of mid markets looking for a team. I don't see NHL owners passing on the opportunity, even if it waters down the league. KC, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, Las Vegas, Seattle, and others all want in. So, I may be more optimistic than most. If nothing else, Milwaukee is a great sports town. Brewers draw the most per capita in baseball. NFL fans drive 2 1/2 hours for a home game. MU is usually at the top of attendance for schools without football or those competing with a NBA team. Even the Bucks, who have stuck since Herb bought the team, but for a few isolated years, drew relatively well until the past 5 years.

---

Not so sure about the validity of that $100 million #. Marc Marotta threw that out there last year saying the BC would need repairs of that amount over the next 10 to 12 years. Seems rather high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MU88

There is some truth to those statements, but part of the BCs problem is that it was build for hockey. Good hockey seats aren't the same as good bball seats. Seats that suck for bball are considered pretty good for hockey. Plus, there is around $100 million in deferred maintenance needed at the BC if a new arena isn't built and the state is on the hook for it. Pump $100 million into a hockey first venue where you will be the primary tenant and the BC starts looking like a much more interesting option.

I actually think the NHL expands by 8 in the next 20 years. Its easy money for the owners and there are a number of mid markets looking for a team. I don't see NHL owners passing on the opportunity, even if it waters down the league. KC, Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto, Las Vegas, Seattle, and others all want in. So, I may be more optimistic than most. If nothing else, Milwaukee is a great sports town. Brewers draw the most per capita in baseball. NFL fans drive 2 1/2 hours for a home game. MU is usually at the top of attendance for schools without football or those competing with a NBA team. Even the Bucks, who have stuck since Herb bought the team, but for a few isolated years, drew relatively well until the past 5 years.

---

No way they expand by 8, that would put them at 38 teams and the product would be so watered down, not to mention a 38 team league is extremely large and much larger than all the other professional sports leagues. I think what is more likely, they will expand by 2 and even out the divisions, and then relocate a few of the under performing franchises.