Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: NCAA coming to Milwaukee

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB" View Post
    Goo - true, Boise may be one of the few west Coasters to put in for it, but as long as they are using the crap pod system, is it really necessary to play out West?

    Ok - 200+ events a year and employing 1,200 people, not including the workers at hotels, bars, restaurants etc? How is this not a no-brainer?
    It is a no-brainer, so long as a significant portion (if not all) is funded without the use of public money.

  2. #22
    Why should there not be any public money used? It will not be the Bucks that own the stadium, it will be the state. Why should the state not help finance their own facility?
    "When March Madness spills into April.... that's the gravy!" - Homer Simpson

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB" View Post

    Bradley Center - New Arena - NCAA 1 & 2 vs 3 & 4.... We had Marotta on our show last night. He said they love the 1st & 2nd round because there are 8 teams, more games and more action. I think there is one reason for smaller crowds and it is pretty obvious. When Milwaukee started getting the 1st & 2nd rounds at the Arena and then the BC, Marquette was not exactly a mainstay in the Big Dance. Sure, people liked seeing MU play in the NIT, but when the NCAAs came to town, the host school/MU fans bought up all of the tickets. Now MU is a mainstay in the NCAAs and people would rather travel to see them play.

    ?
    Couple more things that are major factors. I went in 1992, 96, 99, 04, 10 and in 2014. I will also have tickets in 2017. Let's just say you have to take out a loan to get NCAA tourament tickets now a days as the NCAA charges way too much for tickets as we now live in a world of every game being on TV on CBS, TNT, TBS and Tru Tv on our 50 plus size HD TV's.
    March Madness starts in November

  4. #24
    That's exactly the point. It should be the Bucks' arena. If they want a new facility, their owners should pay for it. As should every other owner in professional sports.

    From what it looks like, between theirs and Herb's investment, it seems like they are footing a significant portion of the bill. As they should.

    There are endless studies on the inefficiency of taxes on publicly funded stadiums, the overstating of economic impact, etc.

    I want a new arena for the city and for Marquette, but that doesn't mean it should be publicly financed.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by GOMU1104 View Post
    That's exactly the point. It should be the Bucks' arena. If they want a new facility, their owners should pay for it. As should every other owner in professional sports.

    From what it looks like, between theirs and Herb's investment, it seems like they are footing a significant portion of the bill. As they should.

    There are endless studies on the inefficiency of taxes on publicly funded stadiums, the overstating of economic impact, etc.

    I want a new arena for the city and for Marquette, but that doesn't mean it should be publicly financed.
    So is it wrong for the State of Wisconsin to give millions in tax credits to help Amazon build a facility in Kenosha? I would imagine it would provide less economic impact than a new facility that keeps an NBA team in the state. I don't see tax payers complaining about Amazon, and the many other companies benefiting from TIFs that are created every year in Wisconsin.

    Amazon doesn't expect to create more jobs in Kenosha than those employed by the Bradley Center, and my guess is Amazon won't have employees in the Kenosha location that pay upwards of $11 million in state income tax annually (Bucks players and staff). Amazon has more money than the Bucks owners, so using that logic, why should the state and the city of Kenosha kick in at all?

    No inefficiency of tax money on this new stadium, as all state bonding would be paid for directly by income taxes generated by the Bucks employees. This tax income will leave if the Bucks leave, so no real tax impact to Wisconsin.

    Also consider we have 3 billionaires ready to invest their money in developing Milwaukee. These guys aren't just looking to make money off the Bucks, they are looking to develop the area around the stadium too. I'm sure their charitable giving to the community will be substantial. I'd bet those studies don't take that into consideration.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by GOMU1104 View Post
    That's exactly the point. It should be the Bucks' arena. If they want a new facility, their owners should pay for it. As should every other owner in professional sports.

    From what it looks like, between theirs and Herb's investment, it seems like they are footing a significant portion of the bill. As they should.

    There are endless studies on the inefficiency of taxes on publicly funded stadiums, the overstating of economic impact, etc.

    I want a new arena for the city and for Marquette, but that doesn't mean it should be publicly financed.

    You can publicly finance a stadium without the economic impact justification. If the city, county, state, etc. want a stadium to keep the Bucks around...then they can build one.

    Public investments to increase "quality of life" have been around for as long as governments have been around. Parks...zoos...museums, etc. Stadiums and arenas fit in that same category.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    5,118
    Quote Originally Posted by MU/Panther View Post
    Great to see Wichita host for the first time since the early 90's. I enjoy new cities that get the bid.
    I was there when WSU hosted the last time. It was my first Regional, living in Wichita at the time. The Fab 5 - 1 were there. They had a sign on their bus that said "Just Passing through".

  8. #28
    There are two issue's to me with a new arena and none really are affected by my Marquette fandom.

    1). Does Milwaukee and Wisconsin want to invest in something that will keep a professional sports franchise in the state, keep or increase jobs and help redefine downtown Milwaukee with new investors.

    2). Can Milwaukee and Wisconsin afford the negative impact economically and to it's reputation by losing major league sport knowing it will never get another one?

  9. #29
    Not to mention, as owners of a professional sports franchise they can move it to any city in the country. Cities with a larger population, cities with better weather, cities with more opportunity. They need a reason to be in Milwaukee. Saying screw you, build your own facility is not the way to do business. Do you have any idea how many companies/businesses in Wisconsin and Milwaukee do not own the building they are in? The Bucks are a tenant. The Admirals are tenants. Marquette is a tenant. Owning the building means the state makes money off of rental fees, concerts, concessions, parking etc. It is a good business move.

    Who gets the parking fees in the three biggest lots associated with the BC? The state and the city of Milwaukee. Do you know how much they make off of that over the course of 200 events in a year? more than $25k per event. Let's see, that's $5,000,000 per year just in parking alone. Then add in facility rental fees, concessions etc, that is a huge money maker. Yep, why should they have to throw any money in?

    Look, over the last several years the Bucks lost money. Nobody knows how much because Herb Kohl won't say, but they LOST MONEY. However, the Bradley Center (aka the STATE) did NOT lose money, THEY MADE MONEY! It is their facility - if the stadium isn't built, the Bucks leave, major concerts won't come and the state will have to pay a crap load to maintain the BC. It is in the city and state's best interest to pony up and help make sure the stadium gets built.
    "When March Madness spills into April.... that's the gravy!" - Homer Simpson

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Ganzer, "IWB" View Post
    Not to mention, as owners of a professional sports franchise they can move it to any city in the country. Cities with a larger population, cities with better weather, cities with more opportunity. They need a reason to be in Milwaukee. Saying screw you, build your own facility is not the way to do business.
    Well, no, they cant just up and move to any city they want.

    Either way...so you're OK with owners of professional sports teams holding cities/counties/states hostage and forcing them to build them $500 million facilities all on taxpayer money? That's ridiculous.

    Again, as I said initially, Milwaukee is lucky in that they already have significant investments from Kohl and the new ownership group. Hopefully they can land a naming rights deal to add on top of that. If they don't, are you confident in a vote passing to approve public financing?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •