I wondering what the mood is in Milwaukee for a new area for the Bucks or the future of the Bradley Center. A lot of development is happening downtown Milwaukee. Is any of that creating enthusiasm for a new arena? Would people rather see the Bucks leave? I remember one poster calling the area around the Bradley Center "arena hell". Is there any place for a new one?

I wondering what the mood is in Milwaukee for a new area for the Bucks or the future of the Bradley Center. A lot of development is happening downtown Milwaukee. Is any of that creating enthusiasm for a new arena? Would people rather see the Bucks leave? I remember one poster calling the area around the Bradley Center "arena hell". Is there any place for a new one?

The mood in Milwaukee as of right now is of no urgency. Herb Kohl has no intentions of moving the team, but he is going to sell them. And I dont think it will happen (letting the Bucks leave) so long as he is a Senator of Wisconsin. He was just reelected last year.

Nobody wants to see the Bucks leave (they are 4th around here, after the Pack, Badgers, and Brewers). They just dont want to have to fund an arena. You of course, probally heard of the Miller Park tax and all the bitching that followed. Personally, I think people overeact to small taxes like the one that would be floated around for a new Bucks arena. The Bradley Center does much more than Miller Park anyway. Concerts, high school sports, the Bucks, Marquette, the Admirals, rodeos, monster truck shows, college graduations, you name it. But really, does the Bradley Center NEED to be demolished? It was a gift to the city and functions fine today. The damn thing only opened up in 1988! What the NBA is doing, forcing cities to build brand new arenas to survive is sad---Seattle being one to feel it. Because they are not building a new arena for the Sonics---they may lose the team to Oklahoma City.

As for where I would like to see a new Bucks arena. Space in downtown is filling quickly. The B.C. is being surrounded by brand new towers and developments. I would probally like to see it built in reclaimed land from the Marquette Interchange project. Other locations I would like is the old Post Office on the River. This is HUGE, ugly building in an awesome location. An arena here would be right next to the new train station, across the River from the Harley Davidson Museum under construction, and a short walk from downtown/Third Ward/Walkers Point. Another option could be across 43 from the Courthouse/Pabst area. There are some low density, ghetto housing areas across from there that could be bought out and developed. This would be a great location for an arena--being right off the freeway and a short walk from downtown. And I guess you could tear down the B.C. and move the Bucks to the Kohl Center in Madison, Resch Center in Green Bay, the U.S. Cellular Arena downtown, or Allstate Arena near O'Hare while a new building is under construction.

Because they are not building a new arena for the Sonics---they may lose the team to Oklahoma City.


:banana:

:banana:

So what happens in 10 or so years when the Sonics or whatever asks for a newer arena? I think this:banana: will turn to this:ohno: While I do this:lol: enen though it is really this:nuts: that it happens again.

Channel 12 yesterday reported that Kohl is interested in remodeling the Bradley Center. I think this is the best option. They have plenty of room to expand the lobby area. Hopefully, they could also punch some holes in some of the concourses and just overall, update the place. The color palate is realllllly bland.

thats probally not a bad idea either. I would like to see them redevelop some of the various open lots surrounding the B.C.....perhaps with entertainment venues and resturants.

So what happens in 10 or so years when the Sonics or whatever asks for a newer arena? I think this:banana: will turn to this:ohno: While I do this:lol: enen though it is really this:nuts: that it happens again.

The public in OKC is well aware that our 5-year old arena will need to be replaced 10-15 years from now in order for OKC to continue to be the NBA's best little host that could.

I'd say that team owners level with the cities from which they want funding and let them know a new stadium, ballpark, or arena now has a shelf life of 15 years...and see how many municipalities continue to want to put one cent into them.

It's pretty pathetic if a building becomes obsolete before the paint fully dries.

The Bradley Center does much more than Miller Park anyway.

I know that's why, when the Twin Cities residents kept shooting down proposals for new homes for the Vikings and Twins, they still built the new arena for the Wild. Saint Paul needed another attraction downtown and it is used constantly. Unfortunately, Minnesota is building three new stadiums (including a new one for the Gopher football team) at great expense.

From what I know of the Bradley Center, it's a great place to see a game and it is used constantly. I saw in an article that Kohl would support renovations now, but still wants a new arena in the future.

When will this end? At least County Stadium was 50 years old when it was replaced.

All opinons aside, the Bradley Center was built to attract an NHL team. It is designed as a hockey stadium. Which is why the Admirals probably have the best hockey stadium in thier league......
The Bradley center is not condusive for basketball, if you get a seat on a corner or behind the basket the view is horrible and really throws away a lot of the enjoyment of the game. I really think we need a new state of the art basketball stadium, replaceing the USCELL and milw. theatre. It would gauranty to keep the team here and could lure other events like the NBA ALLstar game, NCAA tournament games, and many other events that look past milwaukee and the BC when selecting locations!!!

We could still keep the BC though, and it could be a great second stadium downtown, and the admirals could still play there..........

I know that's why, when the Twin Cities residents kept shooting down proposals for new homes for the Vikings and Twins, they still built the new arena for the Wild. Saint Paul needed another attraction downtown and it is used constantly. Unfortunately, Minnesota is building three new stadiums (including a new one for the Gopher football team) at great expense.

From what I know of the Bradley Center, it's a great place to see a game and it is used constantly. I saw in an article that Kohl would support renovations now, but still wants a new arena in the future.

When will this end? At least County Stadium was 50 years old when it was replaced.

I think its a good thing St. Paul got the Wild. Its a nearly the same size as Minny and deserves to have at least one team. I love the Twins and Gophers new stadiums. The Vikings should play like real Vikings and build an outdoor stadium.

All opinons aside, the Bradley Center was built to attract an NHL team. It is designed as a hockey stadium. Which is why the Admirals probably have the best hockey stadium in thier league......
The Bradley center is not condusive for basketball, if you get a seat on a corner or behind the basket the view is horrible and really throws away a lot of the enjoyment of the game. I really think we need a new state of the art basketball stadium, replaceing the USCELL and milw. theatre. It would gauranty to keep the team here and could lure other events like the NBA ALLstar game, NCAA tournament games, and many other events that look past milwaukee and the BC when selecting locations!!!

We could still keep the BC though, and it could be a great second stadium downtown, and the admirals could still play there..........

I am tired of that argument, no offense. I have been to plenty of Bucks games---usually in the $10 nose bleeds. I see the game just fine from up there and dont miss anything. Of course you will have a slight disadvantage sitting behind the hoop---but for ten dollars, should you deserve better for an NBA game? The $28 dollar seats never gave me a problem and the ones more expensive than that offer excellent views.

I know that it was intended for hockey--but the average person cannot tell the difference. Its not like a football stadium used for baseball--ala Metrodome, Dolphin, RFK, or the Oakland Colliseum.

I think we can go back and fourth on this subject until the end of time. IMO if a new arena is to get built, I think that the Bradley center board and the Milwaukee center board must repair the rift between the both of them.

To me bulding a new arena is a two project project. One being the tearing down the US Cellular Arena and building a basketball and concert venue there. Two would be to remodel and keep the Bradley center a vaible venue.

To me a new arena for any team that has played in their respective venues for less than 50 years is dumb. Is the quality of those older stadiums so shoddy that they can't be remodeled and repaired? Can any metropolis (from the largest to smallest) afford to be building new sports venues every 10 or so years? So! if we all have to live within our own means and make do with what we get. Can sports franchises do the same?

Why does everyone want to tear down the Cell? That is agreat building with some great history. If anything, tear down the bradley center, we don't need two large arenas. The Cell is the perfect size for many events.

The option that seems to make the most sense would be to put a new arena (it should be multi-purpose, like the Bradley Center already is) on land that the Bradley Center already owns. That means either remodel what's there, or build something new on the vast two blocks worth of surface parking lots north of the existing BC (and then tearing down the old BC to redevelop that site into other uses...the last thing Downtown Milwaukee needs is to add another large-scale venue that is only used for only part of the year). The fact that the Bradley Center already owns the site now is a bonus, as that eliminates the need to buy a whole new site someplace else, which would add significant costs to any new arena.

The Milwaukee Theater recently went through several millions of dollars worth of renovations, so it's highly unlikely it'll be demolished for anything in the foreseeable future . The US Cellular Arena is where the Bucks used to play until they moved to bigger and better digs at the Bradley Center...which means the Arena site is probably too small to accommodate a multi-purpose professional sporting arena for the 21st Century these days anyway.

Owners beef up plan for small-market clubs
But Bucks still seeking bigger financial boost
By DON WALKER
dwalker@journalsentinel.com
Posted: April 25, 2007

While U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl continues to lobby for a revenue-sharing program for low-revenue teams in the National Basketball Association, league owners last week quietly beefed up an existing assistance plan for small-market teams.

The so-called revenue assistance program has been in existence for a few years. However, NBA owners endorsed a plan that guarantees a total of $30 million will be paid out this season and next to small-market teams such as the Milwaukee Bucks.

The program is scheduled to expire after next season.

Joel Litvin, president of league and basketball operations for the NBA, declined to say whether the Bucks are a recipient of the program. However, an NBA source confirmed the Bucks were one of the low-revenue teams that will benefit from the guaranteed money.

Exactly how much the Bucks stand to receive is not known. In terms of revenue, the Bucks are near the bottom compared with the league's 30 teams. Assuming roughly a quarter of the league's teams are getting financial help, that would mean the Bucks could gain a few million a season.

In an interview with the Journal Sentinel this week, Kohl confirmed that the Bucks got money under the revenue assistance program, but distinguished it from an established revenue-sharing plan other leagues have in place. The revenue-sharing plans of the National Football League and Major League Baseball are considerably larger, compared with the NBA.

"We get some amount of money from it," Kohl said. "It's a revenue-sharing kind of program, but it's not significant enough. I know if you come back in three years, five years and ask that question, we will have a revenue-sharing program."

Last year, Kohl lent his support to a letter signed by seven other NBA owners to adopt league-wide revenue sharing. In the letter, the owners said the current NBA economic system worked only in favor of larger market teams.

Besides Kohl, the owners of the Portland Trail Blazers, Memphis Grizzlies, Charlotte Bobcats, Utah Jazz, New Orleans Hornets, Indiana Pacers and Minnesota Timberwolves signed the letter.

Litvin said that a total of $14 million was paid out to needy clubs in the 2005-'06 season. However, the decision was made to expand the program and guarantee the money, he said. The money from the program comes from tax revenues collected under the league's collective bargaining agreement.

Litvin said league officials regarded the assistance program as a revenue-sharing program. "The board of governors can choose to vote next October to change the plan," he said. "But we have a committee of owners that we put together specifically to address this issue."

Besides the league assistance, the Bucks also receive financial support from the Bradley Center board of directors. This week, Ulice Payne, chairman of the Bradley Center board, said in a radio interview that the Bucks receive a total of $8 million a year, or 27.5 cents of every dollar spent at the Bradley Center.

The Bucks also pay no rent at the Bradley Center.

Kohl said this week that a viable revenue-sharing program and an enhanced lease with the Bradley Center would put the Bucks in good financial shape, despite years of losses.

"And someday down the road when there is a new facility, the future of the Milwaukee Bucks will be pretty good," he said. "Not pretty good. Very good."

Sometime before June 30, the Bradley Center is expected to pick up its option to renew its lease with the Bucks for another year. Team officials, including Kohl, say they would like a longer-term lease.


Herb kohl probably knows more than he's saying, about a new facility!!!

To me a new arena for any team that has played in their respective venues for less than 50 years is dumb. Is the quality of those older stadiums so shoddy that they can't be remodeled and repaired? Can any metropolis (from the largest to smallest) afford to be building new sports venues every 10 or so years? So! if we all have to live within our own means and make do with what we get. Can sports franchises do the same?

I agree with you. What I meant to say is that there was more of a reason to build a new ballpark. Maybe not enough of one, but why replace a less than 20 year old arena? It would be best to update the Bradley Center.

I whole heartedly agree that sports franchises should live within their means, including financing their own place. The teams can charge fees for other uses. It comes down to economics; if you can get someone else to pay and reduce your risk, you will. It's the city (and the people of that city) that needs to say enough is enough. That's what bugs me about the Twin Cities new stadiums and Miller Park. The state rammed it through, unlike Lambeau Field where it was at least a referendum.

Just to say, I do love Miller Park. It just should have been privately financed, although that would never have been the case.

I agree with you cities should stand up to teams and so NO! The problem with this is there's always another city willing to take your place and your team and teams use that to their advantage.

speak of the devil.....http://www.onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/bucksarena.html

I wouldnt object to Waukesha or Racine.

I wouldnt object to Waukesha or Racine.
i would!!!

I wouldnt object to Waukesha or Racine.

are you kidding me? i would disown the bucks.

Is there something wrong with having an sports arena outside of downtown Milwaukee?? The Pistons play in Auburn Hills.

Is there something wrong with having an sports arena outside of downtown Milwaukee??

The economic benefits of having the sports arena in Downtown Milwaukee would all be lost if the sports arena weren't in Downtown Milwaukee.

The economic benefits of having the sports arena in Downtown Milwaukee would all be lost if the sports arena weren't in Downtown Milwaukee.

Well, just food for thought folks, if the Bucks did leave downtown Milwaukee, there still would be other sports activity downtown. You still have the Golden Eagles, Admirals hockey, possible Panther games (if UWM sports get large enough). Couldn't a new MLS team go in the BC as well, instead of building a whole new stadium, as some Milwaukeeians proposed a half year back?

Well, just food for thought folks, if the Bucks did leave downtown Milwaukee, there still would be other sports activity downtown. You still have the Golden Eagles, Admirals hockey, possible Panther games (if UWM sports get large enough). Couldn't a new MLS team go in the BC as well, instead of building a whole new stadium, as some Milwaukeeians proposed a half year back?

A loss is still a loss, you don't have to lose everything to feel it.

Well, just food for thought folks, if the Bucks did leave downtown Milwaukee, there still would be other sports activity downtown. You still have the Golden Eagles, Admirals hockey, possible Panther games (if UWM sports get large enough). Couldn't a new MLS team go in the BC as well, instead of building a whole new stadium, as some Milwaukeeians proposed a half year back?

The Bucks are the primary tenant for the Bradley Center, and as such, the economic benefits they bring to Downtown are tremendously important. Downtown would lose a large slice of the economic benefit pie, even if the Bucks were the only team to vacate the BC.

Having the Bucks leave Downtown, even for some other part of the city or metro, would also send a false negative message about Downtown--that is is somehow not a good place for a team/venue to be.

An MLS team could not use the Bradley Center because MLS is an outdoor league. Thus it would need a new stadium (which is still actively being pursued, by the way).

Why would you people object to the Bucks moving out of Milwaukee? If Waukesha or Racine taxpayers can build the Bucks an arena---why should they stay in a city that won't build them one? Its not as if Waukesha or Racine are far away from downtown Milwaukee. Downtown Waukesha to downtown Milwaukee is little more than ten minutes--its a straight shot. A Bucks fan like myself would just be happy that the team stays in the area.

But no, of course I want them to remain in downtown. Their loss would be a huge blow to it. Thats the NBA's game though. Milwaukee better be prepared to open up its wallets to pay for a new arena. A slight, miniscule tax like the Miller Park one will be fought against.

I don't think it's a matter of people being against building the bucks a new venue... if they needed it. I'm sure when push comes to shove, most people will support some kind of support for a renovation of the BC, but a totally new building? C'mon

side note: I would love to see Waukesha even explore the option of building the Bucks a new arena. They would see the price tag and run with their tails between their legs. I see little appetite for taxes in that county, especially if it has to do with something like this.

I don't think it's a matter of people being against building the bucks a new venue... if they needed it. I'm sure when push comes to shove, most people will support some kind of support for a renovation of the BC, but a totally new building? C'mon

side note: I would love to see Waukesha even explore the option of building the Bucks a new arena. They would see the price tag and run with their tails between their legs. I see little appetite for taxes in that county, especially if it has to do with something like this.

Let's remember, it wasn't too long ago that New Berlin offered to build a brand new stadium for the Packers if Lambeau's renovations were rejected by Green Bay

Let's remember, it wasn't too long ago that New Berlin offered to build a brand new stadium for the Packers if Lambeau's renovations were rejected by Green Bay

It's easy to agree to a huge if, especially before any $$$ signs are brought before voters.

I heard thoughts that the half cent tax used for Miller Park should be extended to solve the Bradley Center problem. Does this have any legs?

So would they be re-named the Waukesha or Racine Bucks?

I uh, agree, with what Bluewarning had to say. Talk about an old thread!

I uh, agree, with what Bluewarning had to say.

You would. ;)

So would they be re-named the Waukesha or Racine Bucks?

Well, they don't call them the "Auburn Hills Pistons"

If Milwaukee County won't vote for a new tax for a new arena, how the hell is conservative Waukesha County going to vote for it?

They won't. Especially not for the Bucks. The Packers are a whole other kettle of fish in this state.

The Bucks are the primary tenant for the Bradley Center, and as such, the economic benefits they bring to Downtown are tremendously important. Downtown would lose a large slice of the economic benefit pie, even if the Bucks were the only team to vacate the BC.

Having the Bucks leave Downtown, even for some other part of the city or metro, would also send a false negative message about Downtown--that is is somehow not a good place for a team/venue to be.

An MLS team could not use the Bradley Center because MLS is an outdoor league. Thus it would need a new stadium (which is still actively being pursued, by the way).


yes, i will reiterate what Markitect said-- an MLS team could never play in the Bradley Center because A) it is too small and B) it is an indoor arena. that would be like trying to host NFL games in the Bradley Center. total nonsense.

anyway, Markitect, you say that Milwaukee's pursuit of an MLS team is still active... do you have any more details on this? i'd love to have an MLS team in milwaukee-- far more than an NHL team, actually.

anyway, Markitect, you say that Milwaukee's pursuit of an MLS team is still active... do you have any more details on this? i'd love to have an MLS team in milwaukee-- far more than an NHL team, actually.

The pursuit of an MLS team was active when I made that post...but it's not anymore, three years later.