Jump to content

Bucks going with two tone floor as well


Krona

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RE: A Bucks move.

Entirely possible. They'll be missed by fans and the corporations who buy tickets, but that's about all. The Bucks have done nothing to promote themselves outside Milwaukee (they play one exhibition in Green Bay and one in La Crosse now; even in the Abdul-Jabbar days they used to play regularly in Madison, and you don't see any advertising outside Milwaukee). NBA basketball is the worst value in sports - extremely high prices for the shortest game of the big three sports. And Milwaukee doesn't have that strong an economy and has lost some corporate headquarters, so the season ticket market has holes.

139775815_cc7da57bca_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update on the Bucks from www.jsonline.com:

Bucks sign new lease with Bradley Center

The Bradley Center and the Milwaukee Bucks today announced they had reached agreement on a new lease.

The lease covers the 2005-'06 season, the 2006-'07 season and an option year.

Bradley Center officials said they expect to exercise the option for a third year.

According to Bradley Center officials, financial terms of the lease, which must be approved by the NBA, remain largely unchanged from previous lease agreements.

(A lease that covers LAST year?)

139775815_cc7da57bca_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update on the Bucks from www.jsonline.com:

Bucks sign new lease with Bradley Center

The Bradley Center and the Milwaukee Bucks today announced they had reached agreement on a new lease.

The lease covers the 2005-'06 season, the 2006-'07 season and an option year.

Bradley Center officials said they expect to exercise the option for a third year.

According to Bradley Center officials, financial terms of the lease, which must be approved by the NBA, remain largely unchanged from previous lease agreements.

(A lease that covers LAST year?)

It also talks about an expansion of 4.5 acres it controls just north of the arena.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=484817

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this turned into another logo discusion, I thought I would continue it.

The Bucks wordmarks have been fixed somewhat, but there are still some problems. The primary hasn't been touched at all.

http://tazz013.googlepages.com/MBdark.jpg

http://tazz013.googlepages.com/MBlight.jpg

You should send this to the Bucks some how. That will show them directly what the problems are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the team will go through an arena switch for the sake of the Marquette Golden Eagles and the posterity of the state of Wisconsin moreso than for the sake of the Bucks.

No offense, but your statement has no basis in reality. Marquette's doing fine, and I'm not sure what the "posterity of the state of Wisconsin" is supposed to mean in this case. A new arena is needed to give the Bucks additional streams of revenue (naming rights, club seats, more suites, more retail space, etc.). That's really the only reason it's needed.

The way everyone says that the arena is in such terrible condition (which means by NBA standards), they make it sound like it's falling apart. I'm saying that to convince the public into allowing the building of a new stadium, they could also say that it will be a new stadium for Marquette, which is a higher draw than the Bucks right now anyway.

As for the other thing I said, the posterity for the state of Wisconsin is so that the state of Wisconsin can continue to have an NBA team. Some areas take for granted the fact that they have multiple NBA or MLB or NFL teams, but for the fans we have here, it is important that the Bucks stay, considering that they are the only NBA team in the state. I think that they would, therefore, cope with the building of a new arena if it were deemed absolutely necessary.

I know I don't speak for everyone, especially because the Bucks fall behind the Packers, the Badgers football, the Brewers, Marquette basketball, and possibly others (Badgers hockey on the rise?) in the popularity among fans. But I remain optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way everyone says that the arena is in such terrible condition (which means by NBA standards), they make it sound like it's falling apart. I'm saying that to convince the public into allowing the building of a new stadium, they could also say that it will be a new stadium for Marquette, which is a higher draw than the Bucks right now anyway.

Really?! I would love to see evidence that "Marquette...is a higher draw than the Bucks right now."

8557127226_fbd001ef58_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way everyone says that the arena is in such terrible condition (which means by NBA standards), they make it sound like it's falling apart. I'm saying that to convince the public into allowing the building of a new stadium, they could also say that it will be a new stadium for Marquette, which is a higher draw than the Bucks right now anyway.

Really?! I would love to see evidence that "Marquette...is a higher draw than the Bucks right now."

So would I.

According to the NCAA, Marquette had a season attendance of 223,983, for an average of 13,998 over 16 home games.

According to ESPN, the Bucks drew 681,337 fans to their 41 home games over the same period, an average of 16,617 per game.

I'll grant that the Bucks' attendance is poor - 20th out of 30 NBA teams, but I don't see the evidence that Marquette is a higher draw in Milwaukee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'd bet the Bucks' ticket prices are higher as well, so ticket revenue would be an even higher percentage larger.

Are the Bucks really considering leaving town? If the Sonics leave Seattle and the Blazers go fill the vacancy up there, I guess I wouldn't mind seeing the Bucks head to Portland. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'd bet the Bucks' ticket prices are higher as well, so ticket revenue would be an even higher percentage larger.

Are the Bucks really considering leaving town? If the Sonics leave Seattle and the Blazers go fill the vacancy up there, I guess I wouldn't mind seeing the Bucks head to Portland. :P

I think management would rather stay in Milwaukee then go to Portland and have there players turning into scum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure sucks that tax payers are asked to shoulder some of the costs of the business. When you own a business with more than $100 million of yearly revenue, you should be responsible for the cost of your building. What kind of business overpays their employees to the point that they can't cover their other expenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way everyone says that the arena is in such terrible condition (which means by NBA standards), they make it sound like it's falling apart. I'm saying that to convince the public into allowing the building of a new stadium, they could also say that it will be a new stadium for Marquette, which is a higher draw than the Bucks right now anyway.

Really?! I would love to see evidence that "Marquette...is a higher draw than the Bucks right now."

So would I.

According to the NCAA, Marquette had a season attendance of 223,983, for an average of 13,998 over 16 home games.

According to ESPN, the Bucks drew 681,337 fans to their 41 home games over the same period, an average of 16,617 per game.

I'll grant that the Bucks' attendance is poor - 20th out of 30 NBA teams, but I don't see the evidence that Marquette is a higher draw in Milwaukee.

Well relative with college attendances, I would expect to see the Bucks have higher attendance rates. I didn't look into the actual figures, I just find that people here are more proud to be a Marquette fan. Plus the fact that they have been developing good players and getting winning records, I see the Golden Eagles developing in ways that the Bucks are not.

I didn't mean anything by it in terms of attendance (and certainly not by TV ratings), but I still think there is more than the actual crowds they draw. And I don't know what facts I could provide for that, sorry, it was more opinionated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure sucks that tax payers are asked to shoulder some of the costs of the business. When you own a business with more than $100 million of yearly revenue, you should be responsible for the cost of your building. What kind of business overpays their employees to the point that they can't cover their other expenses?

The Bucks (and every other pro team) would say that their presence benefits Milwaukee. People come to games and spend money in the city, not to mention the taxes that the city/county/state collect on tickets/merch/etc.

This isn't really my opinion, in fact I recently read a study on pro sports teams that said they have no positive, financial impact on their home cities.

But that's the card they'll play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I really gotta get me a life...

I dunno man. GamePlan lost all credibility to me when they put out those crappy Charlotte Bobcats logos and unis. Whoever designed those shouldve been fired on the spot and committed for being such an idiot.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bucfan speaks the truth, I do suck

bingo. See ya pal.

Man, for a big time designer, you really are a loser. Get a life bud.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.