The future of Am Fam Field

[AdvantageSchneider]

25 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

You bring value, you get value in return. Look, rich people getting tax breaks and these pro teams garnering hundreds of millions in support looks terrible…but it is what it is. If the Brewers bring in say $250mil in income tax revenue and they demand $200mil in taxpayer money or they will leave…are you really saying no? $50mil in gain sounds better than zero.

You just trust your elected officials have the common sense to actually research the money they are giving up is actually causing the gain that is projected. This one time cost is likely easily worth the cost of keeping the Brewers around another 13 years. Even after costing way more in the end, building Miller Park is arguably still a huge economic win.

The reality is if we don’t pony up money some other city will. The demand for a pro sports team is still much higher the the supply. Negotiate the best you can to keep the team and still come out ahead economically. Which this deal definitely seems to do that.

 

The subsidy proposed of $290M would extend the Brewers lease by 13 years.  At a top tax rate of 7.65% the income generated by the Brewers and other teams payroll would have to equal just under $3.8B in total for those 13 years or an average of $291M,  That would be just to break even.  Obviously that isn't going to happen.  So no it's a bad deal.  You really can't spin it any other way.

[AdvantageSchneider]

30 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

 

You just trust your elected officials have the common sense to actually research the money they are giving up is actually causing the gain that is projected. 

 

You have heard of FOXCONN right? LOL.

[MrTPlush]

1 minute ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

You have heard of FOXCONN right? LOL.

I’m not getting political. AmFam isn’t Foxconn. Nor are the current elected officials involved in that…nor is that my point. Nor do you probably have even a sliver of knowledge in the Foxconn original deal or how it has actually transpired in the years after.

[MrTPlush]

6 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

The subsidy proposed of $290M would extend the Brewers lease by 13 years.  At a top tax rate of 7.65% the income generated by the Brewers and other teams payroll would have to equal just under $3.8B in total for those 13 years or an average of $291M,  That would be just to break even.  Obviously that isn't going to happen.  So no it's a bad deal.  You really can't spin it any other way.

Uhhh….what? The state has to get back their money every single year for 13 years to break even?

I must really be missing something…not to mention income tax i a sliver of the economic impact a pro sports team has.

[PeaveyFury]

A lot to unpack in the previous posts, but just noting that implying that the only revenue that recoups state tax comes from payroll is obviously wrong, as you also get state income tax from what you pay grounds crew, beer vendors, etc., and sales tax on ticket sales, concessions, etc.

[areacodes]

10 hours ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2020/02/18/15793/the-wile-e-coyote-of-stadium-consulting-takes-on-brewers-stadium-gets-crushed-by-anvil/

“I refer to [CSL’s] approach as a ‘benefits-only analysis’ because it’s fundamentally one-sided; it never counts the negative economic impact of the taxes needed to fund the subsidy in the first place. And, unsurprisingly, it’s pretty easy to make arguments in favor of an idea if you ignore the cost,” said Dr. Michael Farren, a Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “At the end of the day, peer-reviewed academic research consistently finds that subsidies, especially stadium subsidies, don’t work very well to create economic development, and may even reduce it in the long-run.”

I really can’t take anything from the Field of Schemes website seriously when they are just as biased about the issue but in the opposite direction.  
Not to mention, they can’t even do something simple as read numbers from the study correctly and handle basic math.

[Patrick425]

On 2/16/2023 at 9:30 PM, AdvantageSchneider said:

You can be a brewers fan and also believe that the best use of taxpayer dollars is not to give a hundreds of millions of dollars handout to some of the richest people in the world.  I was in favor of the original deal but would it have passed had the true cost to WI taxpayers been known at the time of the vote?  I doubt it.  I also doubt the people that voted for it thought the taxpayer was going to have to pony up another $300M 30 years later.

I'm not blind to the realities of professional sports but I also don't think that it the way it should be, but that goes for a lot of things in this country.

Ok....but you do understand that this site and my post, and your reaction to my post would not be possible without Miller Park (eventually AmFam Fieild) and all the debate and eventual tax payer money that went into building it, right? None of this conversation would exist without the Brewers and all the reasons that the Brewers still exist in Milwaukee. I'm a Brewers fan that lives in the Milwaukee area. So,  I'm for whatever it takes to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee. 

[rickh150]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:01 AM, Patrick425 said:

Ok....but you do understand that this site and my post, and your reaction to my post would not be possible without Miller Park (eventually AmFam Fieild) and all the debate and eventual tax payer money that went into building it, right? None of this conversation would exist without the Brewers and all the reasons that the Brewers still exist in Milwaukee. I'm a Brewers fan that lives in the Milwaukee area. So,  I'm for whatever it takes to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee. 

I haven’t heard how much Attanasio is willing to put toward the facilities….until that number is set, I am not sure what to think. I think it should be a joint venture with Attanasio throwing about as much $ at the stadium as the state… we’ll see. 

[Brewcrew82]

Do people seriously think that they’re going to reinvent the wheel here re: taxpayer funding for stadiums? The whole idea of it all sucks, of course, but this unfortunately how the world works, and if we don’t pony up, some other city and taxpayer base inevitably will, while we will end up having to pay anyways to clean up the resulting mess. I’m okay with it if that’s the price I have to pay to keep my favorite baseball team in the state. And it’s not like this is being funded through a brand new tax either. It’s but $300 million of a $7 billion annual surplus…Not to mention the government will almost certainly find something even more foolish to spend that money on if we demur. Am Fam and the Brewers actually bring real, tangible economic benefits to the state….

[MrTPlush]

2 hours ago, rickh150 said:

I haven’t heard how much Attanasio is willing to put toward the facilities….until that number is set, I am not sure what to think. I think it should be a joint venture with Attanasio throwing about as much $ at the stadium as the state… we’ll see. 

This entire thing is based on the original agreement that both parties agreed to when the stadium was built. It was apart of the joint venture that pre dates Attanasio owning the team. 
 

Now how they go about this in 10-15 years, that’s a different story. I’m sure it will go however baseball economics and how recent stadiums were built are based off of. 

[AdvantageSchneider]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:01 AM, Patrick425 said:

Ok....but you do understand that this site and my post, and your reaction to my post would not be possible without Miller Park (eventually AmFam Fieild) and all the debate and eventual tax payer money that went into building it, right? None of this conversation would exist without the Brewers and all the reasons that the Brewers still exist in Milwaukee. I'm a Brewers fan that lives in the Milwaukee area. So,  I'm for whatever it takes to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee. 

I've been a Brewers fan for 40+ years.  I'm glad they are here.  But as a citizen of Wisconsin I'm not willing to hand the Brewers a blank check of taxpayer dollars especially when there are so many other pressing needs in the state.

 

[AdvantageSchneider]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:57 AM, areacodes said:

I really can’t take anything from the Field of Schemes website seriously when they are just as biased about the issue but in the opposite direction.  
Not to mention, they can’t even do something simple as read numbers from the study correctly and handle basic math.

You don't have to believe the field of schemes website.  You can just believe all the economists that state that stadium funding is a losing proposition.  

[MVP2110]

2 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

You don't have to believe the field of schemes website.  You can just believe all the economists that state that stadium funding is a losing proposition.  

People said the same thing about Fiserv Forum and that has been a stellar deal for Milwaukee & the state. The state keeps the tax revenue from the players that would have been lost if the Bucks had relocated and downtown Milwaukee is a hot spot now because of the arena

[AdvantageSchneider]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:51 PM, MrTPlush said:

Uhhh….what? The state has to get back their money every single year for 13 years to break even?

I must really be missing something…not to mention income tax i a sliver of the economic impact a pro sports team has.

No, that's the average they'd need to bring in every year to pay break even over the life of the new lease.  

If you added in sales tax on Brewers tickets and merchandise you could slice $15M off the total assuming the Brewers revenue puts them in a break even position with their payroll.

[Brewcrew82]

17 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

I've been a Brewers fan for 40+ years.  I'm glad they are here.  But as a citizen of Wisconsin I'm not willing to hand the Brewers a blank check of taxpayer dollars especially when there are so many other pressing needs in the state.

 

Right, because we can trust the government to actually spend the funds on one of those "pressing needs"...

State will lose more money from the Brewers leaving than they'll gain by not paying $290 million of a $7 billion annual budget surplus for stadium renovations which they're contractually responsible for providing as the landlord in the relationship.

[AdvantageSchneider]

8 minutes ago, MVP2110 said:

People said the same thing about Fiserv Forum and that has been a stellar deal for Milwaukee & the state. The state keeps the tax revenue from the players that would have been lost if the Bucks had relocated and downtown Milwaukee is a hot spot now because of the arena

There is the MECCA, the punchbowl social, and a few other new restaurants and bars there.  There is also a lot of bars and restaurants that were there before the Fiserv forum.  There's also a giant empty lot.

In the meantime Lasry just sold his share of the team at a valuation of $3.5B.  a 900% gain in the short time since he bought the team.  Something tells me he and his other owners could have financed the project themselves just fine.  

And that's the way the game is played by these rich owners. 

[AdvantageSchneider]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:45 PM, MrTPlush said:

I’m not getting political. AmFam isn’t Foxconn. Nor are the current elected officials involved in that…nor is that my point. Nor do you probably have even a sliver of knowledge in the Foxconn original deal or how it has actually transpired in the years after.

I'm a CPA.  I deal with taxes.  As a result I follow state government closely.  So yes I do know quite a bit about the original foxconn deal.  I'd be happy to educate you if you would like.

[AdvantageSchneider]

16 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Right, because we can trust the government to actually spend the funds on one of those "pressing needs"...

State will lose more money from the Brewers leaving than they'll gain by not paying $290 million of a $7 billion annual budget surplus for stadium renovations which they're contractually responsible for providing as the landlord in the relationship.

I don't know what to tell you.  It would be difficult to find a less pressing need than to give the Brewers $7M a year so they can put a golf simulator in Am Fam field or whatever they plan to do in the future.  Call me crazy I'd rather spend taxpayer money on making sure we have adequate police and fire protection, enough teachers in our classrooms and make sure the rest of our infrastructure isn't crumbling.  But that's just me.  

[MrTPlush]

Just now, AdvantageSchneider said:

I'm a CPA.  I deal with taxes.  As a result I follow state government closely.  So yes I do know quite a bit about the original foxconn deal.  I'd be happy to educate you if you would like.

I would rather get slowly backed over by a semi-truck. No thanks.

So you are a CPA and referenced economics before...but don't know why a professional sports team gets money for a new stadium? You can argue it is too much money and they state isn't getting enough return on investment, however, saying these sports teams shouldn't get a single penny is really failing to grasp the basic economics of the situation. Every person in the country tries to pay the least amount at tax time...a sports team is no different. If they can save money, they will...it is just a grander scale. 

It is hard to quantify a lot of the economic impact of the stadium and team. The tax revenue on the payroll alone would likely be approaching $200mil over those 13 years, considering payroll inflation before those 13 years even start. Of course, you also have the fact that the Brewers/Bucks existing is the only thing between Milwaukee being a somewhat relevant city and becoming a yearly inclusion of Top 10 worst places in the entire country.

[AdvantageSchneider]

10 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

I would rather get slowly backed over by a semi-truck. No thanks.

So you are a CPA and referenced economics before...but don't know why a professional sports team gets money for a new stadium? You can argue it is too much money and they state isn't getting enough return on investment, however, saying these sports teams shouldn't get a single penny is really failing to grasp the basic economics of the situation. Every person in the country tries to pay the least amount at tax time...a sports team is no different. If they can save money, they will...it is just a grander scale. 

It is hard to quantify a lot of the economic impact of the stadium and team. The tax revenue on the payroll alone would likely be approaching $200mil over those 13 years, considering payroll inflation before those 13 years even start. Of course, you also have the fact that the Brewers/Bucks existing is the only thing between Milwaukee being a somewhat relevant city and becoming a yearly inclusion of Top 10 worst places in the entire country.

I never said I don't know why professional sports teams get money for new stadiums.  I disagree it is a good deal for the taxpayers.  It's a great deal for the owners.  

If you really think Milwaukee is such a terrible place to live if not for the Brewers and the Bucks you should move someplace better and get the MLB and NBA pass.  

[Brewcrew82]

23 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

I don't know what to tell you.  It would be difficult to find a less pressing need than to give the Brewers $7M a year so they can put a golf simulator in Am Fam field or whatever they plan to do in the future.  Call me crazy I'd rather spend taxpayer money on making sure we have adequate police and fire protection, enough teachers in our classrooms and make sure the rest of our infrastructure isn't crumbling.  But that's just me.  

I don't get why people keep bringing up the X-Golf thing. Brewers paid for that with their own money. The planned use of the funds from the state is available online. Most of it is going to go to maintenance, such as roof repairs, etc. You know, stuff that a landlord (which the state is in this situation) is generally responsible for....

It's but $290 million of a $7 billion dollar surplus. If the state demurs, the Brewers will leave, and the state will lose even more than that. 

[PeaveyFury]

1 hour ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

You don't have to believe the field of schemes website.  You can just believe all the economists that state that stadium funding is a losing proposition.  

.... much of which is based on the question of whether to fund large, new stadium projects, which is not what is being debated here. A large portion of this funding is necessary to meet the contract obligations from 20+ years ago. If you want to retroactively discuss whether that was a bad deal or not feel free to do so separately, but that's not up for debate in this funding package, as the obligations are already contractual necessity. Those funds are coming from someplace, and it seems logical to allocate them from an already-present surplus than to assess a new tax.

Further, the deal extends the life of the stadium by extending the lease at a far lesser cost than building new facilities, etc. The recovery or benefit of the state's investment is greater the longer the 'recovery period' is, which is why the state would strongly prefer to have the recovery period be 42 years instead of 29.

[AdvantageSchneider]

1 minute ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I don't get why people keep bringing up the X-Golf thing. Brewers paid for that with their own money. The planned use of the funds from the state is available online. Most of it is going to go to maintenance, such as roof repairs, etc. You know, stuff that a landlord (which the state is in this situation) is generally responsible for....

It's but $290 million of a $7 billion dollar surplus. If the state demurs, the Brewers will leave, and the state will lose significantly more than that. 

The planned use of funds is a listing of every area in the stadium and a number attached to it.  It doesn't really say what they plan to do with the money.  I doubt they even know.  

Just because the state has a large surplus now does not mean we should give it to the Brewers.  The state and municipalities have a lot of needs.  $290M is a lot of money regardless of how big the surplus is.  

I reject the Brewers are going to leave argument.  MLB already has 2 horrible stadium situations in Oakland and Tampa Bay that they can't resolve.  If there was some other city out there that would build the brewers a new stadium why wouldn't the Rays or the A's just move there?  

[nate82]

Economically there is no benefit to building a stadium or giving money to professional teams compared to an alternative investment.  Majority of the time it is going to be a negative over an alternative.  If you want to bore yourself to death there are a lot of studies done on this by a lot of economists. 

[PeaveyFury]

7 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Economically there is no benefit to building a stadium or giving money to professional teams compared to an alternative investment.  Majority of the time it is going to be a negative over an alternative.  If you want to bore yourself to death there are a lot of studies done on this by a lot of economists. 

Again, the distinction here is that they're not 'giving money' to the franchise- they're allocating funds to meet the Stadium District's preexisting contractual obligations.