The future of Am Fam Field

[Brewcrew82]

24 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

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?  

Roof maintenance is by far the biggest expense for the stadium. A good chunk of the funds will go there. And, as landlord, the state is responsible for footing the bill. 

Plus, the Brewers leaving would cost the state significantly more than $290 million...Loss of payroll taxes alone pretty much gets you there. You sure have a heck of lot more trust than I (and I would argue most people) do in the government using the funds in a way that actually solves issues. 

Finally, the Brewers would definitely leave if Am Fam is not renovated. A's are pretty much headed to Las Vegas at this point, while the Rays and St. Petersburg are working towards an agreement on a replacement for Tropicana Field. Once those situations are resolved, probably within the next year or two, the Brewers would be next up if the state reneges on its preexisting contractual obligations. 

If you want to have a professional sports team in your city, this is the way things work. I don't like it, and I certainly wouldn't just hand Attanasio and co. a blank check, but I want my elected representatives to get this done as the cost of the Brewers leaving far exceeds the benefit of "saving" $290 million. 

[AdvantageSchneider]

8 minutes ago, PeaveyFury said:

.... 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.

So at the end of 2030 the lease expires where are the Brewers going to go play games?  What city is going to pony up $300M+ to build a new stadium for the Brewers and why haven't they done this yet for the Rays or the A's?  The Rays are desperate to get out of Tampa.  They've even talked about playing games in Montreal.  

Are the Brewers really going to want to put up hundreds of millions of their own money for the new stadium too?  Minnesota had to pay $170M for it's stadium.  The Braves paid $372 for their stadium.  If the Brewers can't afford to pay for some items on Am Fam how are they going to afford the down payment on a new stadium?

The Brewers still have $80M to spend on maintenance from the 5 county tax.  Let them use that and then we can discuss what expenses the taxpayer should cover.  I have no doubt taxpayer money will go towards maintenance on the roof and some other vital areas.  I don't believe we should be on the hook just because the Brewers want to redesign the club level or replace all the toilets or the concession stands or whatever.  AM FAM is not going to collapse if we don't give them $290M.    There is no reason to give them $290M just because the state is now flush with cash.

[AdvantageSchneider]

3 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Roof maintenance is by far the biggest expense for the stadium. A good chunk of the funds will go there. And, as landlord, the state is responsible for footing the bill. 

Plus, the Brewers leaving would cost the state significantly more than $290 million...Loss of payroll taxes alone pretty much gets you there. You sure have a heck of lot more trust than I (and I would argue most people) do in the government using the funds in a way that actually solves issues. 

Finally, the Brewers would definitely leave if Am Fam is not renovated. A's are pretty much headed to Las Vegas at this point, while the Rays and St. Petersburg are working towards an agreement on a replacement for Tropicana Field. Once those situations are resolved, probably within the next year or two, the Brewers would be next up if the state refuses to fulfill its preexisting contractual obligations. 

If you want to have a professional sports team in your city, this is the way things work. I don't like it, and I certainly wouldn't just hand Attanasio and co. a blank check, but I want my elected representatives to get this done as the cost of the Brewers leaving exceeds the benefit of "saving" $290 million. 

https://ballparkdigest.com/2022/10/31/no-the-as-arent-on-the-move-to-las-vegas-yet/#:~:text=Yet%2C despite several years of,locked in%2C in either location.

 

Yet, despite several years of exploration in Las Vegas, the A’s have neither agreed to a location for a ballpark or a plan to pay for it.

“That’s correct,” Manfred said. “They have work to do in Vegas. They don’t have a plan locked in, in either location.

I'm not holding my breath on the Rays stadium either.  Let me know when they have the funding figured out.

I've done the math.  loss of payroll does not get you to $290M over 13 years.  Please show me your math I'd love to see it.  

[areacodes]

7 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

 If the Brewers can't afford to pay for some items on Am Fam how are they going to afford the down payment on a new stadium?

The Brewers still have $80M to spend on maintenance from the 5 county tax.  Let them use that and then we can discuss what expenses the taxpayer should cover.  I have no doubt taxpayer money will go towards maintenance on the roof and some other vital areas.  I don't believe we should be on the hook just because the Brewers want to redesign the club level or replace all the toilets or the concession stands or whatever.  AM FAM is not going to collapse if we don't give them $290M.    There is no reason to give them $290M just because the state is now flush with cash.

You seem to keep ignoring that the state is contractually obligated for maintaining AmFam Field as well as keeping it updated.

[AdvantageSchneider]

14 minutes ago, areacodes said:

You seem to keep ignoring that the state is contractually obligated for maintaining AmFam Field as well as keeping it updated.

Until the lease runs out.  The lease runs out in 2030.  New lease new terms. 

The brewers have $80M under the lease's old terms for repairs for the next 7 years.

[MrTPlush]

14 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

Until the lease runs out.  The lease runs out in 2030.  New lease new terms. 

The brewers have $80 under the lease's old terms for repairs for the next 7 years.

That’s not true. The lease does not run out in 2030, unless the Brewers decide to leave. It can run as long as 2040. The Brewers have 5 2-year lease options to pick up.

The stadium district is obligated to do those stadium improvements during the lease, which is as long as 2040. That $80mil might last till 2030, but would fall well short of what is need the rest of the 10 years. I don’t have the lease agreement in front of me (probably some way to see it…but idk), but I presume that is the logical and how it is interpreted. Considering both sides seem to agree there is a mightily huge shortfall way bigger than $80mil.

Of course, it is probably in the stadium districts best interest to make one big commitment and have the lease be solidified through the max amount of time. Versus spending $100mil on the roof in 2030 and then watch the Brewers say never mind after the 2 year extension runs out. 

In reality it appears the lease gets extended three years. The rest is just forcing the Brewers to pick up their ‘player options’. 

[Brewcrew82]

32 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

https://ballparkdigest.com/2022/10/31/no-the-as-arent-on-the-move-to-las-vegas-yet/#:~:text=Yet%2C despite several years of,locked in%2C in either location.

 

Yet, despite several years of exploration in Las Vegas, the A’s have neither agreed to a location for a ballpark or a plan to pay for it.

“That’s correct,” Manfred said. “They have work to do in Vegas. They don’t have a plan locked in, in either location.

I'm not holding my breath on the Rays stadium either.  Let me know when they have the funding figured out.

I've done the math.  loss of payroll does not get you to $290M over 13 years.  Please show me your math I'd love to see it.  

I said '"almost gets you" to $290M over 13 years. I've got it where @MrTPlushhas it, roughly $200 Million over 13 years w/ inflation. Then there's everything else, such as the cost of tearing down/cleaning up/repurposing Am Fam, loss of revenue to businesses, etc. Not to mention the cost to the city's reputation. The Bucks and Brewers are pretty much all that keeps Milwaukee relevant these days.

That article you posted is from October, so very outdated. Here's two separate articles from this month which describe how the A's owner is focusing on a move to Las Vegas and how the city of Las Vegas is giving their "full support".

 https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/las-vegas-site-gives-full-support-to-potential-athletics-move-if-team-cant-or-wont-stay-in-oakland/

https://apnews.com/article/mlb-sports-oakland-athletics-rob-manfred-312e5be116c4b0a027647e21168cbc90

Meanwhile, the Rays and St. Petersburg are working towards the redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site, with the Rays having won the bidding process. 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/rays-win-bid-to-redevelop-tropicana-field-in-st-petersburg-despite-threats-to-leave-town/

As I said, the Brewers are potentially next, and if you don't think they'd leave town, you're fooling yourself. Nashville, Charlotte, Portland, etc. are all willing and waiting...

[PeaveyFury]

51 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

So at the end of 2030 the lease expires where are the Brewers going to go play games?  What city is going to pony up $300M+ to build a new stadium for the Brewers and why haven't they done this yet for the Rays or the A's?

The Brewers still have $80M to spend on maintenance from the 5 county tax.  Let them use that and then we can discuss what expenses the taxpayer should cover.  I have no doubt taxpayer money will go towards maintenance on the roof and some other vital areas.  I don't believe we should be on the hook just because the Brewers want to redesign the club level or replace all the toilets or the concession stands or whatever.  AM FAM is not going to collapse if we don't give them $290M.    There is no reason to give them $290M just because the state is now flush with cash.

Which do you think is actually more likely in reality- the Brewers and the state play a game of chicken in 2029 that results in the BREWERS blinking, or the state making a more desperate contract/funding deal that make us wish we had accepted the $290m?

Also, the district isn't just obligated to do repairs, they're obligated, again contractually, to keep the stadium in line as a top 25% stadium in the league.

[PeaveyFury]

59 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

I've done the math.  loss of payroll does not get you to $290M over 13 years.  Please show me your math I'd love to see it.  

You're equating loss of payroll to the ONLY item that would be lost by the Brewers leaving, which is factually incorrect. As noted, a study independently calculated the revenue associated with the stadium over it's first 19 years at 2.5 billion, which is a pretty hefty return on investment. Extrapolated over another 13-year extended lease period, they'll get back more than $290 million.

I know, you'll cite this as a benefits-only analysis, but that it is benefits-only doesn't mean the resulting data is incorrect. Nowhere was the study intending to show the results relative to another investment- just, literally, the resulting benefits of the actual investment made. Sure, the state could have had a better return if they had taken the stadium costs, put it all on 7 on the roulette wheel at Potawatomi and had it hit, but the actual resulting 'benefit' return on the stadium is relevant to the discussion, and highlights that simplifying the necessary return to breakeven down to state income tax on the teams' payroll isn't fair at all.

[wallus]

Yes having taxpayers contribute to things like this is not ideal and needs to change. The smallest market in baseball with an owner that has no original Wisconsin ties is highly unlikely to be the place that starts it.

[nate82]

2 hours ago, PeaveyFury said:

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.

Yes I know, that was just in general not really pointing out the Brewers situation. 

[nate82]

I believe MA put up his own money plus money from the team to improve the spring training facilities.  I think the majority of the money came from the Brewers and MA and the city of Phoenix provided very little to the Brewers.  My memory maybe wrong about this but I think it was mostly if not all of the money came from the Brewers and MA on this one. 

I would hope MA and the Brewers would contribute more and I would also like to see the Brewers owning the stadium and everything else outright.  I still think crowdfunding would be a better way to go for things like this.  Get to throw out the first pitch of the game of your choosing (excluding opening day, holidays, season seat holder days and playoffs) for $5k.  You could possibly sell about 60 of them for $300k and you could probably even bump that up to $10k and still sell them out at $1m.  Sell the rights to name a bathroom for $1k.  Get your name added to the walk of fame as a contributor to the funding of the stadium remodel for $10 (everyone would get this with any pledge greater than or equal to $10).  Be able to take batting practice with the Brewers at the home game of your choosing for $1k (excluding holidays, opening day and playoffs).  Become a Brewer for the day for $10k (includes uniform with name and a number of your choosing, interview with Uecker or Bill and Brian, signed baseball and you watch the game from the GM's suite).  Could probably sell 10-20 of those. 

There are more things the team could do to raise funds.

[NeedMoreFans]

In the past 50 years, one MLB team has moved and that was Montreal to Washington.  I have my doubts that a (recently) successful team that has attendance in the top half, and near the top ten, every year for the past 10 years will actually move.  Something will get worked out. 

[AdvantageSchneider]

3 hours ago, PeaveyFury said:

You're equating loss of payroll to the ONLY item that would be lost by the Brewers leaving, which is factually incorrect. As noted, a study independently calculated the revenue associated with the stadium over it's first 19 years at 2.5 billion, which is a pretty hefty return on investment. Extrapolated over another 13-year extended lease period, they'll get back more than $290 million.

I know, you'll cite this as a benefits-only analysis, but that it is benefits-only doesn't mean the resulting data is incorrect. Nowhere was the study intending to show the results relative to another investment- just, literally, the resulting benefits of the actual investment made. Sure, the state could have had a better return if they had taken the stadium costs, put it all on 7 on the roulette wheel at Potawatomi and had it hit, but the actual resulting 'benefit' return on the stadium is relevant to the discussion, and highlights that simplifying the necessary return to breakeven down to state income tax on the teams' payroll isn't fair at all.

That study was hot garbage.  But if you want to believe it be my guest.  I can also get you a great deal on the Hoan Bridge if you'd like to buy it.  

[AdvantageSchneider]

3 hours ago, PeaveyFury said:

Which do you think is actually more likely in reality- the Brewers and the state play a game of chicken in 2029 that results in the BREWERS blinking, or the state making a more desperate contract/funding deal that make us wish we had accepted the $290m?

Also, the district isn't just obligated to do repairs, they're obligated, again contractually, to keep the stadium in line as a top 25% stadium in the league.

In order to play chicken the Brewers have to have another city in which they can play games in.  A city in which the Rays and the A's can't move to.  A city that does not appear to exist.  

Again, that clause is in the old lease agreement.  That clause hopefully will not be in the new lease agreement, if our elected leaders have any brains.  

 

[AdvantageSchneider]

3 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I said '"almost gets you" to $290M over 13 years. I've got it where @MrTPlushhas it, roughly $200 Million over 13 years w/ inflation. Then there's everything else, such as the cost of tearing down/cleaning up/repurposing Am Fam, loss of revenue to businesses, etc. Not to mention the cost to the city's reputation. The Bucks and Brewers are pretty much all that keeps Milwaukee relevant these days.

That article you posted is from October, so very outdated. Here's two separate articles from this month which describe how the A's owner is focusing on a move to Las Vegas and how the city of Las Vegas is giving their "full support".

 https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/las-vegas-site-gives-full-support-to-potential-athletics-move-if-team-cant-or-wont-stay-in-oakland/

https://apnews.com/article/mlb-sports-oakland-athletics-rob-manfred-312e5be116c4b0a027647e21168cbc90

Meanwhile, the Rays and St. Petersburg are working towards the redevelopment of the Tropicana Field site, with the Rays having won the bidding process. 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/rays-win-bid-to-redevelop-tropicana-field-in-st-petersburg-despite-threats-to-leave-town/

As I said, the Brewers are potentially next, and if you don't think they'd leave town, you're fooling yourself. Nashville, Charlotte, Portland, etc. are all willing and waiting...

It's hilarious that in the article you listed there is a link talking about the financing.  

Recent California history justifies his concerns. SoFi Stadium in Southern California and Chase Center in San Francisco were built with private money, and Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara was 90% privately financed.

“And then I think there was some contagion where around the country people realized these deals could be done well privately and could generate a return on investment to those investors,” said David Carter, a sports business professor at the University of Southern California. “Why are we throwing public money at it at all?”

[PeaveyFury]

24 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

That study was hot garbage.  But if you want to believe it be my guest.  I can also get you a great deal on the Hoan Bridge if you'd like to buy it.  

I think we all appreciate that thoughtful and data-based response. Can I request that the sales tax from the bridge sale be applied to offset the inevitable restarting of the Five County tax?

[PeaveyFury]

15 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

Again, that clause is in the old lease agreement.  That clause hopefully will not be in the new lease agreement, if our elected leaders have any brains.  

 

…. But that clause and the resulting costs remain relevant for 8 more seasons simply in its current form.

[Brewcrew82]

46 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

It's hilarious that in the article you listed there is a link talking about the financing.  

Recent California history justifies his concerns. SoFi Stadium in Southern California and Chase Center in San Francisco were built with private money, and Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara was 90% privately financed.

“And then I think there was some contagion where around the country people realized these deals could be done well privately and could generate a return on investment to those investors,” said David Carter, a sports business professor at the University of Southern California. “Why are we throwing public money at it at all?”

No more hilarious than posting an article from way back in October to back up your claim that the A's aren't moving to Las Vegas. Or being naive enough to think that the Brewers won't up and leave to larger, more profitable markets such as Charlotte, Nashville, etc. in the absence of funding for Am Fam renovations. Or thinking that the $290 million "saved" will actually be spent by the state in a more productive manner. 

You seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the state of Wisconsin, as the landlord, is contractually obligated to come up with the necessary maintenance costs and to ensure that Am Fam is in the top 25% of stadiums. The 5-county tax was terminated, and as a result, the Stadium District doesn't have the funds to make the necessary renovations. That doesn't mean the state should hand Mark A. a blank check, but it is on the hook here, whether partially or outright.

[MrTPlush]

The biggest part is the lease doesn't go through 2030 (only the guaranteed portion does), it goes through 2040. When they ended the 5-county tax, they expected that money to last through 2040. That leads me to believe the stadium district was contractually obligated/expected to do upkeep on the stadium as long as the Brewers could stay (2040). Saying the $80mil will last till 2030 is probably true (actually probably not considering the total amount is over $450mil), but that isn't when their obligation ends. Maybe that is wrong, but I don't know why the tax would have been going till they had enough money for repairs till 2040, if they were only required to do so through 2030. I just really doubt that was the case. 

[Jopal78]

20 hours ago, PeaveyFury said:

I think we all appreciate that thoughtful and data-based response. Can I request that the sales tax from the bridge sale be applied to offset the inevitable restarting of the Five County tax?

The Five County Tax was ended by legislation signed into law by the Governor. Therefore, it's not a matter of simply  "restarting" the tax. There would have to be a whole new bill passed and signed into law creating a new tax.

Unless there is a radical change in the make up of the Legislature in Madison, I don't see a bill creating a new tax in the 5 counties going anywhere. Nor would I anticipate a bill taxing the folks in Superior, Minocqua, Menomonie and all over Wisconsin to add improvements to the Brewers stadium ever making headway. 

The original Fie County Tax passed by a single vote in the Senate, and George Petak's constituents threw him out of office in a recall election 8 months later.  

The Stadium Board under the lease may be obligated to pay for new ribbon boards, sound systems, etc., but if they don't have the funds to do it, the Brewers do not have much recourse except threaten to move. Seemingly, the most logical solution is the Brewers pay for those things themselves and the lease is reworked to offset those incurred costs with rent abatement. 

 

[PeaveyFury]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

 the Brewers do not have much recourse except threaten to move. 

Most contracts or contract law statutes specify exactly what recourse there is in the event of a breach of contract. Breach of contract almost always leads to litigation, which would almost certainly be lost by the Stadium District.

In addition, the Five County tax was ended by the Stadium District Board, not the legislature. Whether they have the authority to restart it unilaterally is beyond my knowledge.

[Jopal78]

6 hours ago, PeaveyFury said:

Most contracts or contract law statutes specify exactly what recourse there is in the event of a breach of contract. Breach of contract almost always leads to litigation, which would almost certainly be lost by the Stadium District.

In addition, the Five County tax was ended by the Stadium District Board, not the legislature. Whether they have the authority to restart it unilaterally is beyond my knowledge.

Wrong on both counts.

If the lease is breached, the non-breaching party is excused (the Brewers are free to leave), that’s the remedy. Sure, in the event Stadium Board breached the lease there probably would be a lawsuit, but if the Stadium Board is broke and has no source of funding,  there isn’t much a Court could do. 

Link to article where Evers signed bill into law ending tax 

https://apnews.com/article/5b1c522fbe204348be07acd370440e62

…and here’s the text of the law ending the tax

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/related/acts/28

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 2/27/2023 at 12:04 PM, 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.

Is this actually true, though? I'm not arguing for one side or the other - though I'd OBVIOUSLY like the Brewers to stay in Milwaukee - but paying money to a franchise that makes money and supporting their upkeep isn't something a taxpayer should love.

How will the state lose money? Its residents will still spend most of their money in the state and they could sell the AmFam land to someone at a pretty hefty price; it's not downtown but it's well within the metro area and worth a considerable amount of money.

My opinion is that these franchises should pay their own way with help from the city/county/state with tax deferments or free land. But the actual stadium should be on the franchise's dime. If they're going to reap the rewards, pay the fee.

[Fear The Chorizo]

30 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Is this actually true, though? I'm not arguing for one side or the other - though I'd OBVIOUSLY like the Brewers to stay in Milwaukee - but paying money to a franchise that makes money and supporting their upkeep isn't something a taxpayer should love.

How will the state lose money? Its residents will still spend most of their money in the state and they could sell the AmFam land to someone at a pretty hefty price; it's not downtown but it's well within the metro area and worth a considerable amount of money.

My opinion is that these franchises should pay their own way with help from the city/county/state with tax deferments or free land. But the actual stadium should be on the franchise's dime. If they're going to reap the rewards, pay the fee.

Question I'm not sure I know the answer to regarding the stadium since it was initially publicly financed and it's kind of between a lease agreement with the Brewers & Stadium Board/state - what percentage of it is owned by the Brewers?  Do the Brewers get a slice of the revenue generated from the growing non-MLB events the stadium hosts?

If the state of WI did not have a MLB franchise inside its borders, It would absolutely lose tax revenue.  Taking anything out of a state that drives 30ish thousand butts into seats 81 times a year will cost that state significant tax revenue.  While the residents undoubtedly would still spend most of their money within state lines, the state would lose out on a large chunk of tax revenue coming in from other states to watch 81 games, eat at restaurants, stay in hotels, etc...not to mention losing income tax for some pretty high earners.

The problem with simply stating that all pro sports franchises need to foot the full bill for a new stadium or even significant stadium upgrades is that quite simply, not all MLB organizations have that kind of valuation to do so - as soon as the stadium is built it's losing value and requiring more $$ for upkeep.  When you think of it, public financing makes alot more sense for baseball stadiums than football anyway, since baseball stadiums are used much more frequently during the course of a year.  I'd anticipate something to get worked out between the two parties, because it makes too much sense for both sides to continue their partnership through the operating lifespan of this stadium that was publicly funded to begin with.