This topic contains 12 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by
Hitster 12 years, 7 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
- Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 12:08pm #52915

Moon RiverParticipantI found this article in a local Milwaukee magazine which talks about if Milwaukee can keep the Bucks. Many factors in play here, but the bottom line is that the current lease expires in 2017 (which is further out than I thought) and the NBA has declared that the current lease needs to be a "bridge" to the next building to house the Bucks.
To me the cons are outweighing the pros in Milwaukee keeping the Bucks.
Cons: 1) updating the current building is not an option to meet current NBA standards; 2) the City (and County) of Milwaukee cannot sustain the current building and build another one; 3) so the only answer is a new building and demo the current one; 4) The minimum cost of building has to start around $500 Million (and that is bottom dollar and do the want that); 5) the City and County are still hurting over the tax dollars they allocated to building the Brewers their new park in 2001; and 6) politicians are already drawing lines in the sand that any contribution from the City, County or State, will be minimal.
Pros: (and I only see one) That Senator Kohl (owner) is commited to keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee and he is willing to put up money to keep them there. However, in this article, he clearly states that his contribution will not by itself build the new arena.
I am a Bucks fan and would hate to see them leave, but I think there is a better chance of them leaving versus staying. I think the only certainty right now is that Kohl is willing to put up money to help. The rest will have to come from outside sources and I don’t see the citizens allowing additional tax dollars to be used and I don’t see the City/County/State to be in a position to allocate much either.
Better start warming up to the Seattle Bucks, soon to be changed to the Sonics once again.
http://www.biztimes.com/article/20131125/MAGAZINE03/311219984/-1/MAGAZINE
0 - Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 12:35pm #854092
samosasParticipantIt’s really hard for a mid-America team to succeed. The Pacers are obviously killing it, but you either need to have the best coach ever (Pop) or draft well (Thunder). Yeah, there are some exceptions, but in general you need to big market to have big success.
0- Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 1:10pm #854101

Lafferty DanielParticipantMost of the teams in large markets on the East Coast haven’t been ‘successful’ for awhile.
New York/Brooklyn (1)
Philly (4)
Atlanta (8)
D.C. (9)
0 - Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 1:10pm #854205

Lafferty DanielParticipantMost of the teams in large markets on the East Coast haven’t been ‘successful’ for awhile.
New York/Brooklyn (1)
Philly (4)
Atlanta (8)
D.C. (9)
0
- Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 12:35pm #854197
samosasParticipantIt’s really hard for a mid-America team to succeed. The Pacers are obviously killing it, but you either need to have the best coach ever (Pop) or draft well (Thunder). Yeah, there are some exceptions, but in general you need to big market to have big success.
0 - Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 2:55pm #854131
joecheck88ParticipantI wonder if St. Louis or Kansas City could sustain a team. May be worth a shot. Would fit of Milwaukee can’t keep the team. Nobody is going to play for the Bucks unless they draft a huge franchise changer which they could after this year. If let’s say a Parker comes in and can get them a playoff spot next year, and give the team hope it could be different. 2017 is awhile away. Just don’t see sustainable success from that franchise. Teams like the Pacers, OKC, and SA have had long sustainable runs with maybe only a year or two down. That’s why they are doing well. They have a fan base that was built and they are committed to keeping that fan base happy.
0 - Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 2:55pm #854235
joecheck88ParticipantI wonder if St. Louis or Kansas City could sustain a team. May be worth a shot. Would fit of Milwaukee can’t keep the team. Nobody is going to play for the Bucks unless they draft a huge franchise changer which they could after this year. If let’s say a Parker comes in and can get them a playoff spot next year, and give the team hope it could be different. 2017 is awhile away. Just don’t see sustainable success from that franchise. Teams like the Pacers, OKC, and SA have had long sustainable runs with maybe only a year or two down. That’s why they are doing well. They have a fan base that was built and they are committed to keeping that fan base happy.
0 - Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 10:24pm #854288

i’m jus so offendedParticipantI live in St Louis and I seriously doubt we could support an NBA team. Most of the white people I know only care about the Cardinals and hockey Blues and wouldn’t give two s***s about an NBA team and the black population is very poor in the city. I would become an instant season ticket holder but that’s moot. We’re having a tough enough time trying to keep the football Rams in town.
KC on the the other hand might have a chance. They could produce a OKC Thunder type crowd potentially since KU fans love basketball so much. My only concern is that the black population is suuuuper poor their too (I lived in the hood there) and there is a large hipster/arts community that could care less about sports. I hope the tradition in Milwaukee re emerges and the team stays.
0 - Posted on: Tue, 12/03/2013 - 10:24pm #854186

i’m jus so offendedParticipantI live in St Louis and I seriously doubt we could support an NBA team. Most of the white people I know only care about the Cardinals and hockey Blues and wouldn’t give two s***s about an NBA team and the black population is very poor in the city. I would become an instant season ticket holder but that’s moot. We’re having a tough enough time trying to keep the football Rams in town.
KC on the the other hand might have a chance. They could produce a OKC Thunder type crowd potentially since KU fans love basketball so much. My only concern is that the black population is suuuuper poor their too (I lived in the hood there) and there is a large hipster/arts community that could care less about sports. I hope the tradition in Milwaukee re emerges and the team stays.
0 - Posted on: Fri, 12/06/2013 - 6:38am #854613

HitsterParticipantThe Bucks Arena is now over 25 years old and whilst able to hold 18,700 which suits the Bucks current needs, Adam Silver noted that the Arena is now unbefitting of an NBA team. I’d guess that the arena lacks behind newer arenas in Hospitality/Corporate boxes and premium seating which are big money earners.
Moon River’s figure of $500 million for a multi purpose 20,000 plus capacity arena looks fair and so would need considerable funding even with new revenue streams and an attractive naming option. The arena would need to generate lots revenue by attracting big name music acts which the bigger city multi purpsose arenas might again find easier to do. The Admirals Ice Hockey team would move into the new arena as well so money from their owners could possibly assist with the plan.
The key to a team like the Bucks staying in Milwaukee could well be getting a franchise changing draft pick in the next few years as Joe Check alludes to above. If they landed a Wiggins or Parker and the teams’ fortunes turned around then the attendances could start to rise, sponsorship would come in and the value of the team rises which could attract new investors and better players might gravitate there via FA.
If the team does move then I’d guess that Seattle would be likely suitors if they get the new arena sorted.
0 - Posted on: Fri, 12/06/2013 - 6:38am #854717

HitsterParticipantThe Bucks Arena is now over 25 years old and whilst able to hold 18,700 which suits the Bucks current needs, Adam Silver noted that the Arena is now unbefitting of an NBA team. I’d guess that the arena lacks behind newer arenas in Hospitality/Corporate boxes and premium seating which are big money earners.
Moon River’s figure of $500 million for a multi purpose 20,000 plus capacity arena looks fair and so would need considerable funding even with new revenue streams and an attractive naming option. The arena would need to generate lots revenue by attracting big name music acts which the bigger city multi purpsose arenas might again find easier to do. The Admirals Ice Hockey team would move into the new arena as well so money from their owners could possibly assist with the plan.
The key to a team like the Bucks staying in Milwaukee could well be getting a franchise changing draft pick in the next few years as Joe Check alludes to above. If they landed a Wiggins or Parker and the teams’ fortunes turned around then the attendances could start to rise, sponsorship would come in and the value of the team rises which could attract new investors and better players might gravitate there via FA.
If the team does move then I’d guess that Seattle would be likely suitors if they get the new arena sorted.
0 - AuthorPosts
| You must be logged in to reply to this topic. | Login |