Milwaukee Brewers to explore relocation

[StreetHawk]

Certain cities can definitely be more willing to hold the line and say no because they know that there isn't going to be a market better than theirs.

Is Milwaukee in that category? If Nash/Carolina/Portland/ etc. do make the offer of building a new stadium for them, are they are better revenue market than Milwaukee?

 

[KevFu]

I'll link to my previous post on this from the previous thread:
Post in thread 'MLB orders Brewers to upgrade American Family Field, estimated to cost $448 million'
MLB orders Brewers to upgrade American Family Field, estimated to cost $448 million

It's still not a new demand, it's already an obligation as the landlord under the team's lease. And it's still about partisan gridlock. Just rattling the saber louder to try to break that gridlock.

Yeah, I'd fully expect the Brewers to stay put.

What's funny to me is that the renovation/upgrade costs of stadiums and actually FAR WORSE than construction for stadiums in terms of the taxpayer dollars; because tons of new stadium deals are using phantom dollars in "cost to the taxpayer."

Like, the Mets stadium taxpayer cost includes tons of stuff like "foregone future property taxes and rent rebates/credits." The taxpayers aren't coughing up the cash for that, or to even offset that from the budget... because it's the same as their deal for Shea Stadium in 1964!

BEFORE: Old Stadium with a parking lot next door.
NOW: New parking lot and new stadium, locations switched.

$380m of the $614m public total is "opportunity cost" of letting them do it INSTEAD of telling them to go screw and once they leave town, collecting taxes and rent from whatever businesses take their place on that land. Which is never gonna happen (or would make those politicians un-electable).


But a $448m renovation/upgrade cost is ACTUAL CASH. The Brewers upgrades/renovations will cost more to Milwaukee taxpayers than the entire Mets stadium actually cost the taxpayers out of pocket.

Who do you plan on hiring to kidnap and torture the Giants owner until he agrees to allow another team in the Bay Area after the A's move (remember they blocked the A's from moving to SJ as it was ceded to the Giants ironically to stop them from moving in the early 90's)?

Oh that was clear "If I could change reality" and not anything remotely grounded. I realize it would be confusing because I so rarely talk like that.

I don't think it's realistic at all to have the Oakland/San Jose A's and Las Vegas (Rebrand, formerly White Sox) but if I had "God Mode" activated and wherever I placed teams on a spreadsheet is what existed, I'd be more likely to do THAT than to have Cubs, Sox and Brewers among a 32-team league.

 

[KevFu]

The Brewers have about 3.4 million people to draw from within the accessible counties on their side of the border, their market is just fine.

People from Wisconsin aren't coming to Chicago to support one of our teams, the cultural divide from a sports perspective is far too strong.

Yeah. (First, I LIKE the Brewers and wouldn't want to see them move!). I'm consistent in my Sports Business takes that ALL the Top 50 markets CAN support a team; it's just a matter of "how many teams?" And "what level of financially competitive?" No one is going out of business due to lack of ticket sales. The league's Central Revenue funds from national TV money/other league-wide stuff is too large for any Big Four team to fold.

I'm saying from a "Start the league from scratch, where do place teams?" Milwaukee might not crack the Top 32, and DEFINITELY wouldn't if it was decided that there should be two teams in Chicago. It would be like Basketball and Football, where Chicago has one team and Wisconsin has their own as well. OR it would be two in Chicago and none in Wisconsin.

Exactly!

I'm a life-long Cubs fan and can safely say there is NO WAY Brewers fans would defect to either of Chicago's MLB teams.

Right, but my major point on MLB making a huge mistake with the A's is: How many BRAVES fans are left in New England? How many New Englanders dislike the Red Sox? The answer to both is "Very, very few"

But Boston had the AL Red Sox and NL Braves from 1876 to 1952. In less than 70 years, all of New England transitioned from "Split Sox/Braves" to close to 100% Sox.

(And that's why Boston was a financially powerful team even while playing in a 100-year old stadium).


If you let the A's leave the Bay Area, the Giants are going to -- over the course of five to seven decades -- turn a region of 22 million people to exclusively Giants fans, with no hope of getting a second team in there ever again. That's very bad for financial parity. There's Mets fans who wish Steve Cohen would tear down Citified and build a new stadium just because (a) the old owners built CitiField and (b) he can afford to do it. I would rather Cohen build a new stadium IN OAKLAND for the A's... and not turn the Giants into a Second Dodgers we have to compete with in the National League.

 

[Mike Jones]

Good luck. The governor and mayor do want to be known as the people who let the Brewers pack up & leave.

As opposed to throwing hundreds of millions down the toilet when those dollars should have been spent on higher priorities?

I'd rather lose the ball team.

 

[Voight]

As opposed to throwing hundreds of millions down the toilet when those dollars should have been spent on higher priorities?

I'd rather lose the ball team.

Thats you. But politicians have egos and images they want to maintain.

Especially if they ever intend on staying in politics.

 

[StreetHawk]

Thats you. But politicians have egos and images they want to maintain.

Especially if they ever intend on staying in politics.

Put it to a referendum and let the people decide. That's your way out as a politician.

 

[Voight]

Put it to a referendum and let the people decide. That's your way out as a politician.

I agree but how likely is that to happen in these situations?

Heck, Brewers will point to the state government forking over $250million for the Bucks arena within he last decade.

(former owner Kohl and the new owners Lasry/Edens did contribute $100 million each, tho they have a lot more money than Brewers owner Attanasio)

Given Seligs ties to the Brewers I doubt his protege Manclown would let the them relocate.

 

[StreetHawk]

I agree but how likely is that to happen in these situations?

Heck, Brewers will point to the state government forking over $250million for the Bucks arena within he last decade.

(former owner Kohl and the new owners Lasry/Edens did contribute $100 million each, tho they have a lot more money than Brewers owner Attanasio)

Given Seligs ties to the Brewers I doubt his protege Manclown would let the them relocate.

True with the Bucks, but I think most agree that an indoor 18K arena is more versatile and valuable to a city than a 35-40K seat baseball stadium. Between concerts, speaking events, figure skating, etc. you get more bang for your buck with that.

See how both sides play this over the next few years.

 

[Mike Jones]

Put it to a referendum and let the people decide. That's your way out as a politician.

That's what we should have done here in Calgary but our politicians learned a hard lesson from a winter olympics vote a few years ago. The politicians wanted to hold the games but voters said no. We will never be allowed to have a say like that ever again.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

I agree but how likely is that to happen in these situations?

Heck, Brewers will point to the state government forking over $250million for the Bucks arena within he last decade.

(former owner Kohl and the new owners Lasry/Edens did contribute $100 million each, tho they have a lot more money than Brewers owner Attanasio)

Given Seligs ties to the Brewers I doubt his protege Manclown would let the them relocate.

Manfred would stomp on a newborn child's throat for a f***ing dollar. He'd screw Milwaukee in a heartbeat.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Certain cities can definitely be more willing to hold the line and say no because they know that there isn't going to be a market better than theirs.

Is Milwaukee in that category? If Nash/Carolina/Portland/ etc. do make the offer of building a new stadium for them, are they are better revenue market than Milwaukee?

When we're talking close to half a billion dollars in public funds, I think it's fair to ask whether the team is doing enough for Milwaukee to justify that level of investment.

Do the Brewers actually increase the prestige of that city? Does anyone visit Milwaukee because they have a lifelong dream of attending a Brewers game at American Family Field conveniently located on iconic I-95? I have to believe the number is very, very close to zero.

Does the city of Milwaukee actually make money off this organization after dropping $753M in public funds ($290M initial + $13M reno + $450M reno)? Does whatever money they might make by the end of this deal represent a reasonable return on a three-quarter-billion dollar investment?

After that, it comes down to whether the Brewers are really an essential part of the heartbeat of the city, to the point that locals would rather have this team than $753M in public improvements to e.g. fire departments, schools, roads, etc. Maybe people in Milwaukee still feel the answer to that is "yes", but I would be very interested to hear the rationale.

 

[KevFu]

When we're talking close to half a billion dollars in public funds, I think it's fair to ask whether the team is doing enough for Milwaukee to justify that level of investment.

Do the Brewers actually increase the prestige of that city? Does anyone visit Milwaukee because they have a lifelong dream of attending a Brewers game at American Family Field conveniently located on iconic I-95? I have to believe the number is very, very close to zero.

Does the city of Milwaukee actually make money off this organization after dropping $753M in public funds ($290M initial + $13M reno + $450M reno)? Does whatever money they might make by the end of this deal represent a reasonable return on a three-quarter-billion dollar investment?

After that, it comes down to whether the Brewers are really an essential part of the heartbeat of the city, to the point that locals would rather have this team than $753M in public improvements to e.g. fire departments, schools, roads, etc. Maybe people in Milwaukee still feel the answer to that is "yes", but I would be very interested to hear the rationale.

Like I said, a lot of the INITIAL costs are phantom, like "foregone property tax" (and in the Brewers case, if the team was GIVEN the land for the new stadium.... Milwaukee GOT BACK the site of the old stadium!).

The renovation/upgrade clauses are what really hurt the cities. Like, the final price tag for Oakland building Mount Davis to a 30-year old Coliseum was $500m. The next three MLB stadiums that opened after the Mt Davis deal was $585m combined! The next three NFL stadiums were $618 combined. The average price to build one of each would have been $401m.

CIN is getting hammered with their NFL stadium deal because the provisions of the lease are that "if more than X teams have something, the county has to add it to the Bengals Stadium, too." That's made it one of the WORST stadium deals of all-time. They've had to replace the field like six times, add new scoreboards twice, and there's another decade left on the lease.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Good luck. The governor and mayor do want to be known as the people who let the Brewers pack up & leave.

I'm sure they don't, but there are much fewer, if any, options for an MLS relocation...especially when we are talking about 5 new MLB cities - 3 through the relocation of Tampa, Oakland and Milwaukee and 2 supposed expansion teams. Good luck finding 5 cities willing to fund the majority of a baseball stadium.

With the Flames it's a little different. Other cities already have their arenas in place and would need little in the way of additional public expenditures.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Like I said, a lot of the INITIAL costs are phantom, like "foregone property tax" (and in the Brewers case, if the team was GIVEN the land for the new stadium.... Milwaukee GOT BACK the site of the old stadium!).

The renovation/upgrade clauses are what really hurt the cities. Like, the final price tag for Oakland building Mount Davis to a 30-year old Coliseum was $500m. The next three MLB stadiums that opened after the Mt Davis deal was $585m combined! The next three NFL stadiums were $618 combined. The average price to build one of each would have been $401m.

CIN is getting hammered with their NFL stadium deal because the provisions of the lease are that "if more than X teams have something, the county has to add it to the Bengals Stadium, too." That's made it one of the WORST stadium deals of all-time. They've had to replace the field like six times, add new scoreboards twice, and there's another decade left on the lease.

Meanwhile other areas of public need in Cincy have faced severe cutbacks over the past several years.

 

[StreetHawk]

With the Flames it's a little different. Other cities already have their arenas in place and would need little in the way of additional public expenditures.

Hockey gets more tricky than MLB/MLS/NFL due to the shared facilities with an NBA team. Houston, Utah, ATL. etc. the NBA owner has to want a team. Second, is that market going to be better than Calgary and having pay a chunk of the new building or going to that other market and getting a free arena?

 

[Voight]

Meanwhile other areas of public need in Cincy have faced severe cutbacks over the past several years.

Not least of which is the local roads.... I travel through there at least a handful of times every year and by God they are some of the worst roads in the US.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

For the cost of renovations it would be almost as feasible to build a new stadium.

Uecker Park sounds pretty good, but of course it would never happen.

 

[KevFu]

For the cost of renovations it would be almost as feasible to build a new stadium.

Uecker Park sounds pretty good, but of course it would never happen.

Eh, based on the age and quality of the place, probably not.

Chances are a ton of the stuff included would have to be purchased either way. I don't know the Brewers itemized list, but like..

Scoreboard upgrades. You build a new stadium, you're buying all new scoreboards that aren't 20 years old. So if that's the same either way, then keeping the same concrete, rebar, electrical and plumbing is far cheaper than starting over from scratch.

It sounds like the biggest expense/focus of the renovation request is more "social areas" which is the popular trend right now; and the construction cost of taking out what they have and putting those in.

Which is similar to Arizona's issue. For Arizona, they think building new makes more sense because the stadium was designed in 1995 as more of a "50,000 people in the bowl watching the sport (like the older stadiums) with Camden like amenities" than the 35,000 ballpark style place. For Milwaukee, it was built to be a ballpark, just indoors. So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the design, it just costs money to change some areas from their 2000 purpose to a 2025 purpose.