This is a story posted from JS reporter Don Walker on The Business of Sports Blog on Jsonline exposes building problems with the Bradley Center. It shows so many maintenance issues that even Gov. Jim Doyle is giving state aid to keep the building functioning. The link below is the story posted on the website.





http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41937182.html

It's a sign of the times. I work for the City of San Diego, and we're going through similar issues.

Who owns the BC? And if it is some sort of intermediary agency, who owns that agency (City, County, State, Donald Trump)?

"The Bradley Center, a $90 million gift from Jane Bradley Pettit in honor of her father, industrialist Harry Lynde Bradley, was built without tax dollars and has operated without any public funding."

http://www.jsonline.com/business/41916182.html

Apparently, due to the fact it was a gift, by law, it is then considered a state-owned asset.

What does everyone think about a new arena downtown? It would probably cost in the $300 - $500 million dollar range in today's money.
It seems as though the Bradley Center was run as if they knew they would replace it in 15 to 20 years seeing all of the problems the arena has that should have been part of normal maintenance.

Where do we draw the line with fixing costly problems and just putting that potential money towards a new arena?

Or should we not build a new arena, and let the BC deteriorate for 5 more years until its completely obsolete and beyond repair and lose the Bucks, Admirals, Concerts, and have Marquette move to the US Cell?

IMO there are 3 options for placing a new arena:

1. it could be built just north of the BC on some of the Park East land... Then demolishing and reusing the land the BC sits on for re-development

2. Tear down the US Cell Arena and build the New arena there and fix up the BC to become what the US Cell Arena is today (Our Second Arena)

3. Tear down the BC now and move most games to the US Cell Arena while the New arena is under construction where the BC sits today.



And also.... What will or would fund a new arena?
Continuing the Miller Park Sales Tax? A new Sales Tax? A Private Group of Investors??????? Local Govt.????? Herb Kohl???....lol


What do you think?

I'm very certain there is no money for a new arena. There will be no manna from heaven, Kohl won't pay for one, and a regional tax like the stadium sales tax will not fly for the Bucks.

The status quo is not going to continue for long either. Kohl will want to sell his team at some point and I'm not confident that once he's out of office, that he'll be so picky if they move the team.

It would seem the best idea would be to combine the BC with the Wisconsin Center district to help contain/reduce operating costs. Then, when the Miller Park sales tax is paid off, try to get .1% from just Milwaukee county to pay for a significant renovation. The location is in a very good spot that will only improve once Milwaukee gets a streetcar and the Park East fills in. Also, I don't think people will stand for public money to rip down the BC, mainly because it'll be less than 30 years old by the time a decision is reached.

My two cents...

I didn't realize it wasn't part of the Wisconsin Center District... not that that would help any...

Dialogue needed on arena issue

Posted: Apr. 2, 2009

It's not new for this column to note that the Bradley Center is nearing obsolescence as an NBA facility, that a new arena will likely be needed at some point to secure the Bucks' future in Milwaukee and that public discussion is needed long before it reaches a crisis point.

What's new is that some of the principals are beginning to speak out in ways they haven't before.

"The NBA has a propensity to move teams," Bradley Center board Chairman Ulice Payne told me this week. "What does that mean for us? From the Bucks' perspective, it's probably not a clear path for them, either. But we look at it from a building perspective that eventually our building will be replaced. It's not our business to make the decision on how it's resolved, but it is our business to tell the public about what's happening here.

"Don't count on us to save the Milwaukee Bucks. There's an unspoken thing that somehow the building is great and the Bucks are going to be here forever. And I hope that they are. But I know, too, that you can't count on the Bradley Center saving the Milwaukee Bucks."

The Bradley Center wants that message out there in the wake of the news last week that it has asked the state for $500,000 a year over the next 10 years to repair the 21-year-old facility. This is minimal money just to replace worn-out seats, fix the roof, update the wiring, the plumbing, the security systems, etc., not to add revenue-producing amenities for the Bucks.

And that's the thing that makes the Bradley Center one of the most paradoxical entertainment facilities in the country. The $90 million gift from the Pettit family is owned by the state, yet it has never received state assistance, not even for maintenance. The arena has struggled for years to keep up with maintenance while trying to meet the high and ever-changing NBA standards.

The Bradley Center never spoke out about it before because Payne said it wasn't the Pettit family way.

"Maybe we should have told the story 10 years ago," Payne said. "Maybe something would've gotten done by now."

But in the spirit of Al McGuire, his coach at Marquette who accepted no excuses, Payne said the Bradley Center kept its mouth shut, never complained that it got no stadium-district money and met its responsibility to make the building work.

"We've done all we can do right now," Payne said.

"We're trying to say, 'Look, before it gets too far down the road . . . if you say the Bucks move because the building wasn't appropriate, we might get the blame.' It's not the right thing the public needs to know."

Privately, the Bucks applaud the Bradley Center for going to the state for maintenance money. They consider it a minor miracle that the arena has been able to sustain itself.

At the same time, the Bucks have not publicly complained about not being treated like the Milwaukee Brewers and the Green Bay Packers, who benefit from their stadiums being supported with tax dollars. They haven't asked, "Where's ours?"

But that would not be Herb Kohl's way, either.

If the Bradley Center gets the $5 million from the state, Payne said it would be an efficient, clean and safe building for the next 10 years. It won't be able to match league standards at newer arenas, but it can come close with amenities like Club Cambria to help the Bucks make money.

But because the Bradley Center can do only so much with its limited resources, the question is:

Can the Bucks hang on financially for another 10 years in that building?

Team vice president Ron Walter would only say: "For the foreseeable future, the Bradley Center is going to be the home of the Bucks and we've got to make it work. And to do that, it's got to meet certain NBA standards."

As for speculation about a new arena, the Bucks, for good reason, won't touch that one with Yao Ming's arm span.

Who knows what the economy will be like in the future? And a new arena might be practical downtown only if someone finally sticks a shovel into the embarrassingly stalled Park East ground. Synergistic adjacent development - housing, retail, restaurants, bars, etc. - might be necessary for the building to make financial sense.

Does Milwaukee have the economic power or the will to get it going when almost nothing has happened on the Park East site? For example, would a Target department store be enough of a catalyst to get things going on that vacant expanse?

Payne, however, is so bullish on the prospects of a new arena that he said: "I believe we're going to get a new building. There are enough smart people waiting for the right opportunity."

As for the estimated cost of $300 million, Payne said it would have to come from private money.

There is no other way for a new arena to be considered. Given the political turmoil to get Miller Park built and Lambeau Field upgraded at a combined cost of $700 million to taxpayers, there is no public will to pay for another entertainment facility. For all the civic needs in this city and state, it would be unconscionable to suggest public financing, even if the Bucks have been part of the community for 41 years.

There has been speculation that Kohl might eventually get the project jumpstarted with his own seed money as a legacy to his hometown, much as he did at the University of Wisconsin. His $25 million donation to his alma mater made it possible for UW to privately collect the other $50 million for the Kohl Center. Other than to say he would not pay for a new arena, the senator has been silent on the topic.

Payne said he knew of enough investors waiting for the economy to turn and development to begin on the Park East, should the site of a new arena be proposed for Bradley Center-owned land just north of the building.

Just in case, Payne said the Bradley Center had asked stadium architectural firm HOK to present an idea of how a new arena might look on its land. Payne said the Bradley Center also had a developer for its long-proposed "Phase Three," which would include shops and restaurants on the land it owns around the building.

"We have to be ready to go," Payne said. "We're just not going to sit here and not do anything. If we have the land, if we have the developer, let's see what we can do."

No such plans, however, are moving forward in the current economy. Payne also said the Bradley Center would not develop to the north if it knew a new arena would be erected on that site, although no developer would move forward without knowledge that the Bucks intended to stay. Moreover, it's doubtful that development coupled with the Bradley Center could sustain the Bucks for long.

Meanwhile, Payne said, "We're preparing for a 10-year window whether the Bucks are here or not. The Bucks are very important, but they're not our only tenant."

If the Bradley Center does not get state maintenance funds, Payne said that as a non-profit entity it would solicit public donations in return for naming privileges outside the building. The responsibility would still be there to keep the arena clean, functional, safe and comfortable for its other primary tenants such as Marquette and the Admirals, as well as the big-name concerts that maintain cash flow.

Kohl has always said he would neither move the team nor sell to anyone with that intention. But how long can the Bradley Center realistically ensure the Bucks' presence?

"We're going to give them the best that we can give them," Payne said. "In our lease, there is a certain obligation to keep it to NBA standards, and as you know, standards can change from year to year."

The Bucks need to be more upfront, because their silence hasn't always helped them. More important, though, is the need for community dialogue to begin on whether the NBA's presence is a community asset moving forward.

I hate to say it, but I think the Bucks are gone unless this city throws its support behind the team (requiring a star player or a 1-3 seed calibur team) and a new arena is built.

I don't really follow basketball...are the Bucks a team worth saving? Do they give Milwaukee a good name?

I don't really follow basketball...are the Bucks a team worth saving? Do they give Milwaukee a good name?


They are quite horrible, but the question you should ask is, would your rather have an nba team in your city or not have an nba team in your city???? And basketball changes from year to year so they COULD very well make the playoffs next year.

The Bucks do certainly need a new arena. I think a new, architecturally beautiful, glassy arena/entertainment complex could do wonders for this area of town. Milwaukee as a city seems to be on a bit of an upswing, and they need to catalyze it and explode. The economy needs to improve, though, certainly, and the NBA is definitely declining in popularity since being at a high in the 90's.

Like any team, though, all Milwaukee needs is a star. A face and representative of the team. That is the way it has always worked in the NBA.

The arena is only 20 years old, how can they need a new arena already? I can`t believe that.

The arena is only 20 years old, how can they need a new arena already? I can`t believe that.

Read the articles posted earlier in this thread.

I don't really follow basketball...are the Bucks a team worth saving? Do they give Milwaukee a good name?

That is a pertinent question. I think so, if for no other reason that NBA basketball is another unique option of something to do downtown. Also, if we lose the Bucks, restaurants downtown will see their pregame sales decline because of it.

Do they give Milwaukee a good name? Until they have some substained success (whenver that may be), I don't think they will register, one way or the other, in mind of the average American. My experience in living in Washington, DC, and now in San Diego, is that Milwaukee is a pretty well kept secret.

Speaking as a Seattle resident and casual basketball fan, it's amazing how quickly I got over the Sonics leaving. A slight twinge came back when the season started but only slight. It's apparently a common feeling, because there's no noticeable outcry or push for a new team. Now Seattle residents treat NBA like we've always treated NHL...general disinterest.

For other cities like Milwaukee, we did you a favor. One fewer city to compete with in the funding wars.

Speaking as a Seattle resident and casual basketball fan, it's amazing how quickly I got over the Sonics leaving. A slight twinge came back when the season started but only slight. It's apparently a common feeling, because there's no noticeable outcry or push for a new team. Now Seattle residents treat NBA like we've always treated NHL...general disinterest.

For other cities like Milwaukee, we did you a favor. One fewer city to compete with in the funding wars.

I think you might have something there. Let's not forget that Marquette is a decent NCAA division 1 BIGEAST school. And with the Bucks maybe going. With that imputus maybe UWM will strive to become more notworthy with their basketball program so they too can play at the BC with Marquette.

I don't really follow basketball...are the Bucks a team worth saving? Do they give Milwaukee a good name?


Do they give Milwaukee a good name? Yes and no. They have been awful the last few years--but they haven't been a national joke in the same vein as the L.A. Clippers, Pittsburgh Pirates, or Detroit Lions. The team has alot of talent and could have been a playoff team this year (which is no big deal in the East), but unfortuanely, injuries to Redd and Bogut destroyed their season in the long run. The team has a rich history, that has seen many great NBA stars play in this city including Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Ray Allen, and Oscar Robertson. For that reason, they are worth saving. We can't just abandon teams for a string of bad years.

But ultimately, this is for the fans to decide. Milwaukee, currently, does somewhat well with attendance at the B.C.---considering their woes. However, there is little buzz for the team. The people of this city and region have become almost apathetic towards the Bucks and this is not going to change until the team gains a star player or starts winning. It was the same situation with the Brewers. Everybody around here wants to claim that they were huge, huge Brewer fans---but I went to many games in the 90's and watched most of the games. The Brewers were a laughing stock in this city until a few years ago.

Speaking as a Seattle resident and casual basketball fan, it's amazing how quickly I got over the Sonics leaving. A slight twinge came back when the season started but only slight. It's apparently a common feeling, because there's no noticeable outcry or push for a new team. Now Seattle residents treat NBA like we've always treated NHL...general disinterest.

For other cities like Milwaukee, we did you a favor. One fewer city to compete with in the funding wars.

What happened to Seattle worries me about the future of the Bucks. If the Bucks are sold to an owner with no ties to the area and the city doesn't build them an arena----then any smaller city could get a team. Seattle, a bigger city than Milwaukee, lost its team to a city smaller than Milwaukee! At least you guys got a new soccer team.

That being said, I think I could stomach losing the Bucks over the loss of the Packers or Brewers.

Same here. I've always been more of a Seahawks and Mariners fan.

Even then, losing the Sonics was a good lesson in why not to get emotionally involved in a business team. If you want to get emotional, do so for something permanent like a university team. I love the Seahawks and Mariners but they've both looked like near-certain move-aways before.

Well, universities aren't a panacea and my thoughts are mixed. Universities should be about learning, not megasports. Like most people I sort of ignore that when I'm rooting for the UW. (Sorry, the real UW, or U-Dub, not yours! Jab, jab.)

Plus universities can end teams too. Seattle University was a basketball powerhouse in the 60s, ranking #2 one year, with stars like Elgin Baylor. In the 80s they got out of Division I entirely, and only re-entered in 2009.

Same here. I've always been more of a Seahawks and Mariners fan.

Even then, losing the Sonics was a good lesson in why not to get emotionally involved in a business team. If you want to get emotional, do so for something permanent like a university team. I love the Seahawks and Mariners but they've both looked like near-certain move-aways before.

Well, universities aren't a panacea and my thoughts are mixed. Universities should be about learning, not megasports. Like most people I sort of ignore that when I'm rooting for the UW. (Sorry, the real UW, or U-Dub, not yours! Jab, jab.)

Plus universities can end teams too. Seattle University was a basketball powerhouse in the 60s, ranking #2 one year, with stars like Elgin Baylor. In the 80s they got out of Division I entirely, and only re-entered in 2009.

I have a hard time getting behind a university to the same level that I do with professional teams. Don't get me wrong, I love watching the real UW in the tournament or in bowl games---but their horrific losses (such as this years Champ Sports bowl) just aren't as traumatic as seeing the Packers lose at home to the Giants! I guess I would have to go to these universities to get that emotional invested--which probally stems from being fianancially invested in these high priced schools.

I hear what your saying about college sports though. There is no threat of them leaving, unlike professional sports teams, excluding teams like the Yankees, Packers, Red Sox, and Steelers.

Read the articles posted earlier in this thread.

I did read it, and like I said, I can`t believe it. I can`t believe that they can`t rennovate or rebuild it.

I did read it, and like I said, I can`t believe it. I can`t believe that they can`t rennovate or rebuild it.

While it would be nice to rebuild it, no one either has the money or wants to spend it and govt. intervention isn't likely ...

see, here in small time Milwaukee, most people would rather give up a professional sports team before even giving thought to the possibilities of a new arena.

The renovation costs would be an insane amount to spend on an arena that would only probably last for another 10 years. The building is incredibly out of date and in pretty bad shape.
It really wouldn't b cost effective to try and renovate the building.

It was given as a gift 20+ years ago and really hasn't ever received funding for proper maintenance, which has lead us to this problem.

First off, its not so much the age of the building, but the purpose of the building. It was originally built for hockey and has sight lines designed for hockey. The seating and views for basketball are horrible, unless you are in the lower bowl, and even then there are still sections with bad views down there. Take a look at the Kohl Center in Madison for an example of something built FOR basketball. The upper deck is still quite close to the action.

Second, the building doesn't fit the current NBA model. Today's arenas have multiple sit-down restaurants and entertainment areas (arcades etc) to keep the arena making money during off-peak times. The Bradley Center cannot accommodate such features.

I'm pretty much convinced that the Bucks will be gone, unless they can somehow put together a team that gets people excited about the team again (think 2000-2001, 80s). It will be one of those things that people won't realize how much they miss it once its gone.

While it would be nice to rebuild it, no one either has the money or wants to spend it and govt. intervention isn't likely ...

see, here in small time Milwaukee, most people would rather give up a professional sports team before even giving thought to the possibilities of a new arena.

The renovation costs would be an insane amount to spend on an arena that would only probably last for another 10 years. The building is incredibly out of date and in pretty bad shape.
It really wouldn't b cost effective to try and renovate the building.

It was given as a gift 20+ years ago and really hasn't ever received funding for proper maintenance, which has lead us to this problem.

I remember when they decided to build the arena, they wanted to attract an NHL team to Milwaukee when they should have thought about the Bucks interests first. Pretty screwed up.

^^Why should the Petitts have thought of the bucks' needs first? They gave the damned thing to the state, and, they were the ones trying to acquire the NHL team. Not "screwed up" in my mind. Perhaps they should've skipped their philanthropy and let the bucks languish at MECCA?

It definitely is a hockey building, and basketball is sometimes painful to watch there... it really doesn't fit the NBA mold.

Anyone know how close we ever came to actually getting a NHL team?

^^Why should the Petitts have thought of the bucks' needs first? They gave the damned thing to the state, and, they were the ones trying to acquire the NHL team. Not "screwed up" in my mind. Perhaps they should've skipped their philanthropy and let the bucks languish at MECCA?

Well let`s see, Milwaukee never got an NHL team after they built it for hockey and the bucks got a hockey arena to play basketball in. How is that not screwed up?

It definitely is a hockey building, and basketball is sometimes painful to watch there... it really doesn't fit the NBA mold.

Anyone know how close we ever came to actually getting a NHL team?

It was pretty close. The Petitts were slated to get the aforementioned expansion team, until the fees were too high, and then they had a deal to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins and relocate them here, and that was blocked by the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks who viewed Milwaukee as "in their market" and torpedoed the deal. (Well, at least that's the gist of it)

@Progressisgood- If the bucks were not pleased with the design of their new arena, they were free to contribute some money towards it's design to ensure that it met their needs better. This gets filed under don't look a gift horse in the mouth. The Bradley Center kept the Bucks in town, sure, but they weren't it's primary concern at the time it was built. That the NHL franchise never came, and thus it was a bad thing for the bucks is a short sighted point. If the BC weren't built, the Bucks would have left. It was good enough for them back then, bad sight lines or not.

^^It should have been built for the Bucks. There should have been some research done before they built it.

^^It should have been built for the Bucks. There should have been some research done before they built it.


it does make sense to plan these things before building a $90 Million stadium... maybe they were trying to do what the county did in building old County Stadium... "If you build it they will come"

^^It should have been built for the Bucks. There should have been some research done before they built it.

Then the Bucks should have paid for it. They got a free building. What are you not understanding here?

Then the Bucks should have paid for it. They got a free building. What are you not understanding here? ^^What I don`t understand is why they didn`t do research on how much a start-up fee for an NHL team would be. They should have done their homework beforehand. And now the Bucks will not exist in Milwaukee anymore because the arena wasn`t thought out appropriately. I grew up loving the Bucks and nobody seems to care about them anymore. I think it sucks. And don`t reply to me anymore because you don`t understand my point of view.

^^What I don`t understand is why they didn`t do research on how much a start-up fee for an NHL team would be. They should have done their homework beforehand. And now the Bucks will not exist in Milwaukee anymore because the arena wasn`t thought out appropriately. I grew up loving the Bucks and nobody seems to care about them anymore. I think it sucks. And don`t reply to me anymore because you don`t understand my point of view.



Woah, dude. Check the attitude. If you don't want people to reply to your posts here in this forum, then feel free not to post here. I would be disappointed to see the bucks go, but I think that's a foregone conclusion at this point. I don't think it's right no matter what, however to blame the loss of the team on preceived short-sightedness of a late philanthroper. But really, this is a discussion board, and you have to expect that people with different ideas will respond to you.

Part of what is hurting the Bucks' popularity is general downtrend in the popularity of the NBA nationwide. Back in the 90s, when the likes of Jordan and the Bulls were king, the NBA was at the height of its popularity. They had an image that they were selling quite well then, but now it has just gotten out of hand.

Like the other guy said, now it is just basically professional wrestling, and the people who go to sports games don't really care too much to watch a what is basically a glorified street game with a bunch of egotistical, attention-hungry, overpaid, me-first, hot tempered attack-the-basket thugs (and if you think this is a racist statement, then you are the one who is racist).

That's why I'd like to see soccer take off more in America. It's a lot more fun to watch than hockey or basketball, and its outdoors, like sports should be.

And I can't see the Bucks moving, at least for awhile. There are very few new cities that I could see supporting an NBA franchise now, and there are many, many teams that are floundering about even worse than the Bucks have been (Wolves, Kings, and some others).

Woah, dude. Check the attitude. If you don't want people to reply to your posts here in this forum, then feel free not to post here. I would be disappointed to see the bucks go, but I think that's a foregone conclusion at this point. I don't think it's right no matter what, however to blame the loss of the team on preceived short-sightedness of a late philanthroper. But really, this is a discussion board, and you have to expect that people with different ideas will respond to you.

Check your attitude. What are you not understanding here?

Like the other guy said, now it is just basically professional wrestling, and the people who go to sports games don't really care too much to watch a what is basically a glorified street game with a bunch of egotistical, attention-hungry, overpaid, me-first, hot tempered attack-the-basket thugs (and if you think this is a racist statement, then you are the one who is racist).

That's why I'd like to see soccer take off more in America. It's a lot more fun to watch than hockey or basketball, and its outdoors, like sports should be.

And I can't see the Bucks moving, at least for awhile. There are very few new cities that I could see supporting an NBA franchise now, and there are many, many teams that are floundering about even worse than the Bucks have been (Wolves, Kings, and some others).

Yes, the NBA is a frustrating league to watch. The officiating has to be the absolute worst in all of professional sports. I don't think there is another league that has Dan Gadzurics or Stephon Marburys----making ridiculous money (6-20 million a year) to sit on the bench. Not only that, but the season drags on far too long. The playoffs begin tonight I believe and end in June!

It would be hypocritical for me to talk about players attitudes and all that, when its probally worse in the NFL. I don't know whats worse in all of professional sports then some scrub, doing some stupid ass dance after making a 3 yard stop. We complain about the NBA's image, but the NFL is filled with jailbirds, drug users, felons, and guys who abandon their children. It would be an interesting conversation to figure out why America is ok with the NFL, but despises the NBA's "thug" image.