|
Post by DunneDeal on Apr 14, 2015 7:04:43 GMT -6
I believe the Nashville/Milwaukee contract ends soon, so we might not be an affiliate for them much longer. But in any case, I hope they stick around.
|
|
|
Post by Hack on Apr 14, 2015 7:55:05 GMT -6
I believe the Nashville/Milwaukee contract ends soon, so we might not be an affiliate for them much longer. But in any case, I hope they stick around. Contract was renewed in May 2014 through the 2016-17 season. And they've been the affiliate since Nashville came into the NHL in 1998-99, so there's no reason to believe that won't continue past 2017. Oh yes, there is. New arena has to be in place by 2017. Just a question if there's a place for the Admirals to play when that time comes.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Apr 14, 2015 18:25:20 GMT -6
i think if worst comes to worst, the arena will be able to work as a hockey venue its a matter of buying the boards rink and ice- which could run in the 500k-600k range. but i think thats doable.
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Apr 15, 2015 6:57:38 GMT -6
OnMilwaukee.com learned that $300,000 to $400,000 in upgrades would be needed, as well additional costs, such as glass for the boards and other hockey-specific materials, but the facility can produce ice and keep it ready for play.
"It's doable," a source said. "Absolutely doable."
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Apr 15, 2015 8:44:32 GMT -6
If we play it correctly, there should be two hockey teams in the Panther Arena not too far down the road.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on Apr 23, 2015 15:33:11 GMT -6
wait UWM is starting up a hockey team? cool! i'd defintely go watch them if that's the case!
|
|
Lutzow10
Freshman
MILWAUKEE PROUD - PANTHER STRONG
|
Post by Lutzow10 on Apr 23, 2015 16:13:27 GMT -6
Harmless prank or something serious? Im leaning towards prank/someone getting ahead of themselves. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by panther9193 on Apr 29, 2015 15:51:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ghostofdylan on Apr 29, 2015 19:09:09 GMT -6
This is it exactly ... if indeed it ever gets built.
|
|
|
Post by axaguy on Apr 30, 2015 8:20:46 GMT -6
Just have to ask a couple of questions after watching/reading comments about the arenas for some time as a person with no vested interest in the decisions. Am a UIC grad with MU season tix who has attended games at the BC, Panther Arena and Klotsche Center, on campus for you guys.
What's the infatuation with Panther Arena to begin with? It's NOT on campus or near it. Not associated with or through the university. It IS old. Someone put down the BC as needing updating but it is MUCH more modern than the Panther Arena. Why would the convention area need/want to keep the PA as well as a new BC-like arena?? Older buildings cost more to maintain.....what's the value to Milwaukee? The city and university?
It would be like Chicago keeping the old Chicago Stadium after building the United Center across the street....Why??
I much prefer the BC to the United Center anyway, right now. Yes, it does seat a few fewer people. I think about 19,000 vs about 22,000 for basketball but Chicago IS a bigger market/population area than Milwaukee.. But I like the arena and it isn't THAT old. And wasn't it a "gift" to the city from the Bradley/Pettit clan?? Gift meaning "no charge?"
There seems to be a lot of emotion attached to the argument/debate but why?? Don't get it. Just wondering.........
|
|
|
Post by Hack on Apr 30, 2015 9:18:28 GMT -6
Just have to ask a couple of questions after watching/reading comments about the arenas for some time as a person with no vested interest in the decisions. Am a UIC grad with MU season tix who has attended games at the BC, Panther Arena and Klotsche Center, on campus for you guys. What's the infatuation with Panther Arena to begin with? It's NOT on campus or near it. Not associated with or through the university. It IS old. Someone put down the BC as needing updating but it is MUCH more modern than the Panther Arena. Why would the convention area need/want to keep the PA as well as a new BC-like arena?? Older buildings cost more to maintain.....what's the value to Milwaukee? The city and university? It would be like Chicago keeping the old Chicago Stadium after building the United Center across the street....Why?? I much prefer the BC to the United Center anyway, right now. Yes, it does seat a few fewer people. I think about 19,000 vs about 22,000 for basketball but Chicago IS a bigger market/population area than Milwaukee.. But I like the arena and it isn't THAT old. And wasn't it a "gift" to the city from the Bradley/Pettit clan?? Gift meaning "no charge?" There seems to be a lot of emotion attached to the argument/debate but why?? Don't get it. Just wondering......... The BC is "old" when you factor in all the amenities (or lack thereof) that dominate modern arenas. No practice or training facility, suites are small and minimal, concourse is small, concessions aren't ideal, restaurants and pro shops that aren't open year-round are non-existent, etc. There are many more to include, but anyone who's been down in that area on a non-gameday knows it's a ghost town (ask former owners of GameTime or the other 15 incarnations of that restaurant). Building a new arena (with the planned development) north of that area creates a new destination in the city ... one that will benefit UWM Panther Arena. The attachment to the Arena is simple ... There needs to be more than one place to play. Chicago has UC, Allstate, UIC Pavilion, Sears Centre, etc. Where would UWM, Admirals, and the Wave play, not to mention all the other smaller events like the circus, motorcross, etc. Sure, these events might not appeal to all of us, but it's ignorant to say these events don't matter. Having only one arena means there would be a fight over dates. In turn, Milwaukee would miss out on a lot of events. Space and money are the two main reasons why UWM Panther Arena works for now and for the foreseeable future. We moved back to the Klotsche as an on-campus location for one year. It was a disaster. There are high school gyms much better than that sh*thole. Continuing to play there until funds were raised for a new arena and our athletic dept. settled down amid constant change would've crippled the program. Plus, having UW-Milwaukee as the naming rights owner increases the university's visibility in the city (especially downtown), which UWM continues to do with its campus out near the medical college and other auxiliary locations. UWM is no longer a campus restricted to its tiny footprint on the east side.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Apr 30, 2015 9:49:27 GMT -6
Good explanation by Hack. The UWM Panther Arena and the new Bucks building do not compete in the same space. They are vastly different in seating capacity. The BC would -- which is why it has been obvious forever that it would be torn down immediately after the Bucks had a new building, no matter where the new building was located. That has now been confirmed. And that being the case the next question was, where would Milwaukee play if both the Arena and the BC were sacrificed for the sake of the new Bucks building? There was only one legitimate answer -- we would have to go back to the slightly oversized high school gym that our state and system leaders saw fit to bestow on the second largest University in the State almost 40 years ago, and have never seriously come close to replacing with a building more suitable to the University's needs and status.
Since the Arena is now safe, we can also now say it plainly: if the UWM basketball program had to go back to the Klotsche, we would have no D1 program within a matter of a few years. The program would not survive. And we can also say plainly now that such "collateral damage" would have been welcomed -- even celebrated -- by some in the community.
The Arena itself is a great, iconic, historic Milwaukee building. On those merits alone the suggestions that it might be destroyed were appalling. But for those of us partisan to the Milwaukee basketball program, we also knew that the stakes for our program were life or death. Is it possible that some day there will be an on-campus or near-campus venue built? Yes, but short of a monstrous donation or a sea change in state government, that possibility is not just years away, but probably decades away. In the interim, as Hack said, having our name in lights on an iconic, high visibility facility downtown works beautifully with our University's geographic growth throughout the metro area. And the fact that the Arena just happens to be the best pure basketball venue ever built in the State of Wisconsin is a nice plus.
|
|
|
Post by nickpanther on May 27, 2015 21:22:48 GMT -6
the Arena is one of the few sports arenas in the state older than Lambeau. its seen two NBA teams - the Bucks in the 70s and 80s and the old Milwaukee Hawks in the 50s. its seen hockey, the Admirals in the late 70s and mid-80s before the BC was built, and now it has indoor soccer with the Wave as well as UWM basketball.it will mark its 65th season this year (it was built in 1950). if it was a baseball stadium, it would be the 3rd oldest behind only Wrigley Field and Fenway Park, which are both over 100 years old.
|
|