Module/Week 4: Case Study 3 Milwaukee Brewers
Each Case Study assignment is designed to help the student make application of course content to a real world situation. Read the assigned case study and connect the key issues in the case to assigned readings and presentations. Respond to the questions with direct, thorough responses.
Each case study assignment should include the following:
· Title Page in APA format
· Introduction to the case summarizing the situation
· Questions converted to sub-headings – responses to each question
· Strong conclusion that summarizes the ideas
· APA Style Reference page (as needed)
Submit each Case Study by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of the assigned module/week, except for Case Study 7, which is due by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of Module/Week 8.
Milwaukee Brewers Case Study
Some years ago, the Milwaukee Brewers’ (www.milwaukeebrewers.com) then-president Bud Selig made the decision that, in order to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee, the organization needed to construct a new stadium. Under the supervision of the new president, Wendy Selig-Prieb (Selig’s daughter), ground was broken for Miller Park on November 9, 1996. In 2000, President Selig-Prieb stated, “The Miller Park era is beginning soon, and with it a renewed vitality for major league baseball in Wisconsin. Accordingly, we are committed to bringing a championship to Wisconsin. Our fans will enjoy a world class ballpark, and also deserve a rewarding game experience.” Selig-Prieb believed that Miller Park would bring fortune to Milwaukee, the surrounding area, and the Brewers; the same is true for any organization that thinks it is necessary to build a multimillion dollar facility.
Countless Major league baseball teams all over the nation have considered, are considering, or are in the process of building new stadiums in order to keep players, the community, fans, and team executives happy. Most cities and teams turn to the idea of the new facility when they are facing a buyout, relocation considerations, player and fan dissatisfaction, and so on. Baseball club officials understand that the decision to construct a new facility can often reverse these negatives.
County Stadium, the former home of the Milwaukee Brewers, opened on April 6, 1953, and increased its seating capacity over the years to hold 53,192 fans. Miller Park, on the other hand, holds only 43,000 spectators but features a convertible, fan-shaped roof. Miller Park is a more elaborate establishment than the old County Stadium; it is the extra details found in new stadiums that executives of major league teams believe will help keep their organizations competitive from all angles.
Identify and explain the potential problems and opportunities that both the team and the city might have faced that could have led to the decision to construct a new facility.
1. Use the steps provided in Exhibit 6.1 to decide whether you would have tried to build a new stadium if you were in Selig-Prieb’s shoes.
2. Do you believe that facility construction is a rational decision for (1) team executives, (2) city officials, and (3) local citizens? Explain.
3. Should team executives, city officials, and local citizens all be able to participate in the decision-making process of building a new stadium? Explain the advantages and disadvantages of including all of these individuals.
4. When making decisions about building a new facility, what type of decision style(s) and problem attributes are most relevant and important? Explain.
5. Identify how Miller Park has helped or hindered the Brewers organization by finding statistics from attendance records at County Stadium in 1999 and comparing them to current records at Miller Park. With what you have learned, and with any additional information you have found, justify whether or not the decision to build the stadium was a positive move for the team.
6. Go online to locate another organization that has recently built or is currently considering building a new facility. Use that organization’s website to try to identify what led to that decision. Include any information regarding the funding options associated with facility construction. Suggest some possible alternatives to facility construction, if appropriate.
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..
With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.Read more
The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.Read more
The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.Read more
By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.Read more