Did Admirals get screwed?

[IWB]

When the plans for the new arena excluded the Milwaukee Admirals, I felt bad for the Ads, but figured there was not much you can do, they are building this thing for basketball.

So the Admirals get cut out and move next door to the Arena.

Now the reports are out there saying the new facility will be outfitted for hockey in hopes to sttract MHL games and NCAA games?

So why shut out the Admirals?

[MUfan12]

So will the ice be down permanently? The intent all along was to be able to play hockey there on a singular basis.

But as far as the Ads go, would they be able to afford the rent at the new place? They paid next to no rent at the BC.

[MU/Panther]

Good subject! The new Bucks Arena let's call it, might have bad seats for hockey. Maybe not a bad for the NY Islanders at the Barclays Center.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/islanders-at-barclays-center--where-terrible-seats-meet-good-intentions-142752112.html

It does seems odd that the Bucks didn't even talk to the Admirals. That's a bit of a slap in the face. The Admirals lease at the Bradley Center is $90k per year with 0% from food and merchandise. Harris Turner owner has said they are losing money playing at the BC. The Milwaukee Admirals rent is around the same at UWM Panther Arena and they will be getting a major chunk from merchandise sales and will be getting money from food sales. Something the Admirals never had at the BC and will make the Admirals grow as a business. Those things would never happen at the Bucks Arena. What would rent be $200 to $300k, Admirals could never afford that.

[MU/Panther]

So will the ice be down permanently? . I would think not. Cost would be high for something that might be used twice a year.

[MU/Panther]

Why the Admirals are better off at UWM Panther Arena than the Bradley Center.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2016/03/16/why-the-admirals-are-better-off-at-panther-arena.html

[IWB]

I agree that they are better off at the arena and told Jon Greenberg that a couple of weeks ago.

Just can't believe that throughout the entire process they never spoke to the Admirals even once and now say they are trying to attract NHL & NCAA hockey. A bit of a slap in the face.

[MUFAN2010]

I agree that they are better off at the arena and told Jon Greenberg that a couple of weeks ago.

Just can't believe that throughout the entire process they never spoke to the Admirals even once and now say they are trying to attract NHL & NCAA hockey. A bit of a slap in the face.

Not really it will be used as a singular basis and won't have ice down permanently.

[MUfan12]

Just can't believe that throughout the entire process they never spoke to the Admirals even once and now say they are trying to attract NHL & NCAA hockey. A bit of a slap in the face.

I guess I don't get why it was a slap in the face. The Admirals aren't a draw. Their arrangement with the BC was a unique one due to the Pettits. Why would the Bucks ownership have any obligation to them?

[IWB]

No, they are not a big draw but they have been a prominent member of the community for decades. Go to any festival, parade, event - the Admirals have a presence.

I am not saying they should have been in the new facility, I do think that are a better fit in the Arena. But when you are tearing down a building that was basically built for them, and they have been a contributing member of the community for over 40 years, you at least have a conversation or two with them. Maybe the rent is too high, maybe the benefits weren't enough, plenty of reasons could have gone into the reason why they decided not to go into the new facility, but they shouldn't have been completely ignored, that is my point.

[MUFAN2010]

I think the conversation between the Bucks and Admirals was pretty quick and went something like this:

901

[IWB]

They never contacted them.

[MU/Panther]

I guess I don't get why it was a slap in the face. The Admirals aren't a draw. Their arrangement with the BC was a unique one due to the Pettits. Why would the Bucks ownership have any obligation to them?

It's a slap in the face because the Bucks didn't sit down and talk to the Admirals. Yes, I agree the Bucks have zero obligation to them.

To say the Admirals aren't a draw would be incorrect. They average 6,169 per game. Which for an yearly total equals Marquette attendance. Yes, it takes the Admirals 41 dates to get their compared to 16 to 19 for Marquette.

[MUFAN2010]

To say the Admirals aren't a draw would be incorrect. They average 6,169 per game. Which for an yearly total equals Marquette attendance. Yes, it takes the Admirals 41 dates to get their compared to 16 to 19 for Marquette.

My local church also could draw what Marquette does in attendance it may take 4 masses a weekend to do it and the big Easter Vigil and Xmas eve mass but we should put them in the Bradley Center too.

[MU/Panther]

Ok, I guess, that is what I just said. Don't understand what your point your trying to make or ask. I guess if your church pays enough in rent, sure why not. ;)

Are you really downgrading an average of 6,000+ per game? God I hope, not!