|
Post by BBFran on Apr 17, 2014 8:08:14 GMT -6
The idea that stadia and pro sports teams provide significant ROI compared to their cost has been debunked so thoroughly by economists over the last 20 years I'm amazed anybody can still argue otherwise with a straight face. This is all about ego and private profit.
Where is the demand for more seats at Bucks games or more private boxes? I have participated in discussions about box purchases and believe me, it's a hard sell in this market.
By the way, if they do end up building this new 20,000 seat palace (on our dime) they would truly be very smart to devise a high tech curtaining system to close off half those seats on the fly, because most Bucks or MU games won't need them after the initial building interest wears off. For the majority of Bucks and MU games this year, the actual attendees would have fit in the Cell. The objective proof is that ever since their move to the larger BC the Bucks have rarely been anything approaching a tough ticket. That's not going to change over the long term. Marquette is now in a mid-major + league that simply won't draw many crowds exceeding 10,000. This is a horribly expensive solution in search of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Apr 17, 2014 8:26:50 GMT -6
I'll move on. You can have your option. Anything, I say isn't going to change you mind or your negative way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Apr 17, 2014 8:50:06 GMT -6
BC should have definitely been built at 17k. Next one should too.
Sent from my SCH-R970 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by jhart05 on Apr 18, 2014 23:24:16 GMT -6
I'll move on. You can have your option. Anything, I say isn't going to change you mind or your negative way of thinking. I don't see what's negative about what Fran is saying. Seems honest and pretty much the truth. Why taxpayers should pay for a building for millionaires, who don't give a dam-n about the average person, to play and profit off, is beyond me. If the new owners want it, they can find a way to build it without our money. Private corporate donations, an extra tax on ticket sales, any other way besides tax money. I would almost be willing to bet, if put to a public vote, it will be voted down in a landslide. However, I doubt we're going to get a say in the vote. Other than voting out of office anyone who does vote for it. I was just at the BC tonight for hockey. If they do go to a tax on ticket sales, I would then stop getting my Admirals 10-game pack. About all I'm willing to give to a new pro sports/concerts/monster truck/or whatever else arena is this penny that's laying her next to my monitor. The BC is just fine for anything not NBA basketball.
|
|
|
Post by jhart05 on Apr 18, 2014 23:29:55 GMT -6
The footprint of the Arena isn't big enough for the Bradley Center, about 500,000 square feet. The average new NBA arena comes in about 750,000 square feet. No way the Cell gets razed. That said, I personally would propose that if the local taxpayer is involved in any way in the construction of the new arena, that said taxpayer's local D-I public university be allowed as a tenant in the facility free of charge. I say the same thing about Miller Park. Put in the same turf the Packers use up there. Seems to hold up pretty well for them in much harsher weather and more rigorous use. The public University, and only DI baseball team in the state, should be able to play their games at the publicly funded Miller Park.
|
|
|
Post by jhart05 on Apr 18, 2014 23:34:56 GMT -6
Somewhere in all the coverage, I read that Herb Kohl is planning on using part of the proceeds of the sale to help fund the new arena. Yes. Kohl is kicking in $100MM and the new owners are kicking in $100MM. They still need another $200MM to probably more like $300MM, to build it.
|
|