The future of Am Fam Field

[PeaveyFury]

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

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. 

I don't believe this is correct. The lease itself may have a separate remedy built in, which would require knowledge of the lease to verify. Also, if a court renders a judgement against the District, which it almost certainly would in the event of a lawsuit, as you acknowledge is likely, a judgement likely wouldn't consider the financial situation of the defendant, but rather the obligation owed. Upon judgement, the District would be compelled to meet its obligations or declare its insolvency. In short, it's a scenario that is almost certain to not be a feasible one in real life, as there's virtually no way the District will be allowed to be declared insolvent.

It would take further knowledge of the lease itself to speak in any more absolutes as to what specific recourse the team would have if the District does indicate it won't fulfil its obligations. Stating anything without specific knowledge it speculation and personal opinion, not fact.

[MVP2110]

I know when the debate around a Bucks stadium was happening one of the biggest points was the loss of the tax gained from players playing their games in Wisconsin. It was actually cheaper to pay for the stadium then to lose the tax money from the players. Does anyone know how this stacks up for the MLB? I would assume every player who plays a game in Milwaukee would have to pay taxes just like the NBA. Logically speaking I think that alone would come close to covering the cost of the stadium wouldn't it?

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, PeaveyFury said:

I don't believe this is correct. The lease itself may have a separate remedy built in, which would require knowledge of the lease to verify. Also, if a court renders a judgement against the District, which it almost certainly would in the event of a lawsuit, as you acknowledge is likely, a judgement likely wouldn't consider the financial situation of the defendant, but rather the obligation owed. Upon judgement, the District would be compelled to meet its obligations or declare its insolvency. In short, it's a scenario that is almost certain to not be a feasible one in real life, as there's virtually no way the District will be allowed to be declared insolvent.

It would take further knowledge of the lease itself to speak in any more absolutes as to what specific recourse the team would have if the District does indicate it won't fulfil its obligations. Stating anything without specific knowledge it speculation and personal opinion, not fact.

None of this above is how law works, unfortunately.  The only thing a Court can do is assess money damages in n breach of contract cases.

If the Stadium District is truly broke without a source of new funding, the Brewers could get a judgment against it, then wipe their noses with the piece of paper for all it would be worth.

Judgments look great framed on an attorney’s office wall, or as sound bites on the news, but if the debtor does not have the ability to satisfy the Judgment, there isn’t much a Court can do thereafter. 

You were right on one thing, I don’t think either the Brewers or the Stadium district want matters to end up in litigation. Thus, there is a likely compromise to be had and all of this is nothing more than gamesmanship before a compromise is struck.

[PeaveyFury]

7 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

None of this above is how law works, unfortunately.  The only thing a Court can do is assess money damages in n breach of contract cases.

If the Stadium District is truly broke without a source of new funding, the Brewers could get a judgment against it, then wipe their noses with the piece of paper for all it would be worth.

Judgments look great framed on an attorney’s office wall, or as sound bites on the news, but if the debtor does not have the ability to satisfy the Judgment, there isn’t much a Court can do thereafter. 

I don't see how any of this is contrary to what I posted earlier. Though again I'd note that whether the Stadium District can be compelled to do anything is likely already in the prior agreement, which neither you nor I have likely seen.

In the end though Jopal, you're arguing a position that simply won't happen. The District won't be allowed not to meet its contractual obligations.

[MrTPlush]

 

1 hour ago, MVP2110 said:

I know when the debate around a Bucks stadium was happening one of the biggest points was the loss of the tax gained from players playing their games in Wisconsin. It was actually cheaper to pay for the stadium then to lose the tax money from the players. Does anyone know how this stacks up for the MLB? I would assume every player who plays a game in Milwaukee would have to pay taxes just like the NBA. Logically speaking I think that alone would come close to covering the cost of the stadium wouldn't it?

Depends on what number you want to look at. There is the $290mil figure and there is the figure both parties assume it is worth in the end after gains/investment that is like $450mil. Most places and people will use the $290mil figure, but $450mil is probably more accurate...however, we don't know what the state would do with the money if it didn't go to the Brewers. No proof it would get invested or go to something actually useful. 

The player tax alone is approx. 7.65%. If you assume the average payroll of teams playing at AmFam (including the Brewers) is an average of say $170mil over those 13 years, that would be $170mil in tax revenue. Then you have ticket sales revenue. 2.6mil a year at an average of $35 a seat would be $65mil in tax revenue. Then I have to imagine the average fan is spending at least half their ticket cost within the stadium, thus another $30mil in tax revenue on that. You are probably going over $290mil on player payroll and gameday experience tax revenue alone.

 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, PeaveyFury said:

I don't see how any of this is contrary to what I posted earlier. Though again I'd note that whether the Stadium District can be compelled to do anything is likely already in the prior agreement, which neither you nor I have likely seen.

In the end though Jopal, you're arguing a position that simply won't happen. The District won't be allowed not to meet its contractual obligations.

Well Peavey, I guess time will tell. Keep in mind, many people and experts don’t think the US Government would actually default on its debts either, but there’s a realistic chance the politicians will allow it to happen in a couple months. 

The only thing I really know for sure is there is no source of funding for the District and it would require new law to fund it again. 

Given the current political climate in Madison isn’t  much different from the one in DC, where mutual brinksmanship could end up in a default by the US government, I’m not holding my breath that this problem will get solved logically or earlier than a stroke before midnight.

As an aside, THAT would be an article worth reading if one of the regular “authors” attempted to obtain the lease agreement with a FOIA request and wrote up a summary. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

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 actually agree with this, which is why I'm in favor of some assistance in building a baseball stadium (tax reductions/deferments, free land, etc) while I'm basically 100% against public financing of anything football-related.

[MrTPlush]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I actually agree with this, which is why I'm in favor of some assistance in building a baseball stadium (tax reductions/deferments, free land, etc) while I'm basically 100% against public financing of anything football-related.

Considering Milwaukee doesn't have a football stadium, AmFam plays a pretty important role in attracting bigger events. Concerts have gotten pretty common in recent years, plus the soccer games they have hosted. I wonder if they started getting more aggressive scheduling these types of events knowing they were going to need additional money and wanted to show AmFam was a versatile asset to Milwaukee outside of baseball. This year alone will feature at least three concerts.

It is too bad it really isn't cost effective to heat it in the winter.