(09-21-2016 09:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think the most likely scenario is UC told FCC they'd be open to ways to improve Nippert as a soccer facility provided FCC funded it and it benefited Football as well.

That is a key statement.

Here are some serious questions.

How does UC football benefit? The seat configuration is changing. There will evidently be temporary seating on game days. New turf that was not needed or looks as good as the previous turf was installed and it also requires extra man hours to convert from soccer to football and football to soccer.

Where is the benefit? In the supposed interest in UC football from soccer fans attending UC? Does UC get a cut of the concessions or ticket sales for soccer games? Does anybody know the answers to any of these questions?

I am not a soccer or FCC hater. I don't understand or necessarily like soccer, but I don't hate it.

My concern is that it is UC's facility and anything done to change it should have UC football's best interest in mind, not the soccer franchise.

My take has always been that the Lindner's have funded UC faciility upgrades in the past and UC wants to maintain a good relationship with them into the future for any potential donations, so they are allowing them to convert Nippert to suit the soccer franchise needs. But I fail to see any benefit to UC football at this time.

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

(09-21-2016 09:48 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

This is what we know about the contract. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../83597078/

UC brings in at least 5k per game in rental fees and 20k per year for facility use.

(09-21-2016 09:50 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:48 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

This is what we know about the contract. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../83597078/

UC brings in at least 5k per game in rental fees and 20k per year for facility use.

Thanks! I will read the article.

(09-21-2016 09:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 07:59 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 07:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I was just thinking we needed a completely new thread to poo poo FCC and the University efforts to bring in more revenue and more people to campus. Thanks for starting this.

Nice strawman argument. No one is "poo pooing" FCC or saying they shouldn't play there to bring more people to campus or generate revenue. The objections are changing the basic character of the FOOTBALL stadium for a different sport and a private entity and the total lack of transparency with the entire project. The "I love soccer" crew's willful ignorance of this is mystifying.

Not a strawman argument. There are multiple threads dealing with BS we don't need a new thread to talk about it.

Your objections are to message board speculation about changing the basic character of the Football stadium. The "lack of transparency" is only a thought because of message board posts on the subject. What the university has said is that it will not make any changes that affect capacity or negatively impact the football viewing experience. I have no reason but to trust them in those comments and the whole lack of transparency argument is based on random speculation from people who have been hostile to soccer at Nippert from the beginning. I think the most likely scenario is UC told FCC they'd be open to ways to improve Nippert as a soccer facility provided FCC funded it and it benefited Football as well. I have no reason to believe we sold out anything about Nippert for soccer and it's not shocking that the "lack of transparency" BS comes from people hostile to soccer at Nippert from the beginning.

I don't love soccer. I enjoy it, but it is well behind Basketball and Football. I enjoy watching some EPL though I don't watch every week even my favorite team like I would for sports I truly care about. The characterization of "I love soccer crew" is a baseless attack that has ignored every point I've made on the subject.

However, I do love getting a new chance to go down to Nippert in the offseason. I do love the university getting to make profits during the offseason by having a new use for Nippert that is drawing 15K plus a game down to campus. I do love new people getting to check out the campus and the boom to the area.

That's where your argument derails. The lack of transparency argument is due to...the lack of transparency. Period. End of story. I've been drumbeating lack of transparency since day one only to have you repeat over and over, "hostility to FCC Cincinnati."

Transferring it to "hostility to soccer" is flat out incorrect. You're dismissing dissent simply because you don't like information contrary to what you want to believe.

Go back 13 months, where I was unmercifully drilled for having the audacity to question scoreboards, sound systems and new turf for Higher Ground. I asked, "Really? Where? Where does it say we're getting this stuff?" Well, I'm still waiting...

I was drilled again for speculating that seats would be removed based on the very simple observation that Bohn said it might happen and that soccer field dimensions simply don't fit. Well...guess what...

We've got an RFP out and contractors are coming in to bid in the next few weeks. You'd think UC would be bragging about these glorious plans. No...they're still difficult to find.

(09-21-2016 09:50 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:48 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

This is what we know about the contract. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../83597078/

UC brings in at least 5k per game in rental fees and 20k per year for facility use.

Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

(09-21-2016 10:10 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 07:59 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 07:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I was just thinking we needed a completely new thread to poo poo FCC and the University efforts to bring in more revenue and more people to campus. Thanks for starting this.

Nice strawman argument. No one is "poo pooing" FCC or saying they shouldn't play there to bring more people to campus or generate revenue. The objections are changing the basic character of the FOOTBALL stadium for a different sport and a private entity and the total lack of transparency with the entire project. The "I love soccer" crew's willful ignorance of this is mystifying.

Not a strawman argument. There are multiple threads dealing with BS we don't need a new thread to talk about it.

Your objections are to message board speculation about changing the basic character of the Football stadium. The "lack of transparency" is only a thought because of message board posts on the subject. What the university has said is that it will not make any changes that affect capacity or negatively impact the football viewing experience. I have no reason but to trust them in those comments and the whole lack of transparency argument is based on random speculation from people who have been hostile to soccer at Nippert from the beginning. I think the most likely scenario is UC told FCC they'd be open to ways to improve Nippert as a soccer facility provided FCC funded it and it benefited Football as well. I have no reason to believe we sold out anything about Nippert for soccer and it's not shocking that the "lack of transparency" BS comes from people hostile to soccer at Nippert from the beginning.

I don't love soccer. I enjoy it, but it is well behind Basketball and Football. I enjoy watching some EPL though I don't watch every week even my favorite team like I would for sports I truly care about. The characterization of "I love soccer crew" is a baseless attack that has ignored every point I've made on the subject.

However, I do love getting a new chance to go down to Nippert in the offseason. I do love the university getting to make profits during the offseason by having a new use for Nippert that is drawing 15K plus a game down to campus. I do love new people getting to check out the campus and the boom to the area.

That's where your argument derails. The lack of transparency argument is due to...the lack of transparency. Period. End of story. I've been drumbeating lack of transparency since day one only to have you repeat over and over, "hostility to FCC Cincinnati."

Transferring it to "hostility to soccer" is flat out incorrect. You're dismissing dissent simply because you don't like information contrary to what you want to believe.

Go back 13 months, where I was unmercifully drilled for having the audacity to question scoreboards, sound systems and new turf for Higher Ground. I asked, "Really? Where? Where does it say we're getting this stuff?" Well, I'm still waiting...

I was drilled again for speculating that seats would be removed based on the very simple observation that Bohn said it might happen and that soccer field dimensions simply don't fit. Well...guess what...

We've got an RFP out and contractors are coming in to bid in the next few weeks. You'd think UC would be bragging about these glorious plans. No...they're still difficult to find.

I did go back 13 months and bumped anything I could find regarding scoreboards and sound systems. There was virtually nothing about it other than you claiming everyone said it was going to happen. I found maybe one or two posters that said anything about it as a positive impact on UC. I love how you conveniently forget when your arguments are countered.

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:50 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:48 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

This is what we know about the contract. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../83597078/

UC brings in at least 5k per game in rental fees and 20k per year for facility use.

Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

The seats in question are generally given away to youth football and anyone else who would take them so we are not losing much revenue there.

I also believe there is additional revenue on top of the $105,000 we have garnered to date. UC has to be getting a significant portion of the concessions and parking and may even be getting a piece of any merchandise sold around Nippert (note: it is my understanding the parking revenue does not go to the athletic department but to a different bucket within the university).

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

My understanding is that those seats aren't sold because you can't see the field. Thus, no loss of revenue from tickets.

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:50 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:48 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

This is what we know about the contract. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../83597078/

UC brings in at least 5k per game in rental fees and 20k per year for facility use.

Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

From what I understand is UC doesnt even sell the first few rows of seats on the sidelines due to the benches. So there wouldnt be any seats being removed there that would cause a loss of revenue. Now where there will be seats removed will be the rounded area at the student section to essentially square it off. but based on the other posts in this thread it looks like they are going to replace them with bleachers for UC game days. I dont necessarily agree with this path but it is what it is. I doubt UC is going to do anything thats going to lose them 500k+ per year. They are losing money hand over fist as it is. Even if they did lose that much i envision Linder saying here's 10 mil for a new building stop complaining and the complaining would stop.

A lot of this is really only relevant if UC makes it into the Big 12. If they don't i don't forsee attendance for UC football to continue at its current levels which makes many of these arguments largely irrelevant

(09-21-2016 10:25 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

My understanding is that those seats aren't sold because you can't see the field. Thus, no loss of revenue from tickets.

It's very naive to think UC is ONLY getting rental fees out of this deal. The school is certainly getting parking revenue, they surely get a cut of the merchandise being sold on campus, and I'd be shocked if they didn't get some of the take on concessions and ticket sales as well.

Which seats did they remove?

(09-21-2016 10:25 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

My understanding is that those seats aren't sold because you can't see the field. Thus, no loss of revenue from tickets.

Houston fans were occupying those seats last Thursday night.

(09-21-2016 10:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:10 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 07:59 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 07:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I was just thinking we needed a completely new thread to poo poo FCC and the University efforts to bring in more revenue and more people to campus. Thanks for starting this.

Nice strawman argument. No one is "poo pooing" FCC or saying they shouldn't play there to bring more people to campus or generate revenue. The objections are changing the basic character of the FOOTBALL stadium for a different sport and a private entity and the total lack of transparency with the entire project. The "I love soccer" crew's willful ignorance of this is mystifying.

Not a strawman argument. There are multiple threads dealing with BS we don't need a new thread to talk about it.

Your objections are to message board speculation about changing the basic character of the Football stadium. The "lack of transparency" is only a thought because of message board posts on the subject. What the university has said is that it will not make any changes that affect capacity or negatively impact the football viewing experience. I have no reason but to trust them in those comments and the whole lack of transparency argument is based on random speculation from people who have been hostile to soccer at Nippert from the beginning. I think the most likely scenario is UC told FCC they'd be open to ways to improve Nippert as a soccer facility provided FCC funded it and it benefited Football as well. I have no reason to believe we sold out anything about Nippert for soccer and it's not shocking that the "lack of transparency" BS comes from people hostile to soccer at Nippert from the beginning.

I don't love soccer. I enjoy it, but it is well behind Basketball and Football. I enjoy watching some EPL though I don't watch every week even my favorite team like I would for sports I truly care about. The characterization of "I love soccer crew" is a baseless attack that has ignored every point I've made on the subject.

However, I do love getting a new chance to go down to Nippert in the offseason. I do love the university getting to make profits during the offseason by having a new use for Nippert that is drawing 15K plus a game down to campus. I do love new people getting to check out the campus and the boom to the area.

That's where your argument derails. The lack of transparency argument is due to...the lack of transparency. Period. End of story. I've been drumbeating lack of transparency since day one only to have you repeat over and over, "hostility to FCC Cincinnati."

Transferring it to "hostility to soccer" is flat out incorrect. You're dismissing dissent simply because you don't like information contrary to what you want to believe.

Go back 13 months, where I was unmercifully drilled for having the audacity to question scoreboards, sound systems and new turf for Higher Ground. I asked, "Really? Where? Where does it say we're getting this stuff?" Well, I'm still waiting...

I was drilled again for speculating that seats would be removed based on the very simple observation that Bohn said it might happen and that soccer field dimensions simply don't fit. Well...guess what...

We've got an RFP out and contractors are coming in to bid in the next few weeks. You'd think UC would be bragging about these glorious plans. No...they're still difficult to find.

I did go back 13 months and bumped anything I could find regarding scoreboards and sound systems. There was virtually nothing about it other than you claiming everyone said it was going to happen. I found maybe one or two posters that said anything about it as a positive impact on UC. I love how you conveniently forget when your arguments are countered.

Nope. Wrong again. Per usual. Carry on.

(09-21-2016 10:39 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Nope. Wrong again. Per usual. Carry on.

Ha...you're the best. No real information, no real counter. Just accepting your statement as fact. When I bumped all the FCC threads and various quotes from them a few months ago you were pretty silent when it showed the opposite of what you claim. I'm not digging through those again just to prove you wrong one more time.

(09-21-2016 10:25 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

My understanding is that those seats aren't sold because you can't see the field. Thus, no loss of revenue from tickets.

They sure looked pretty full last Thursday night.

Anyway, it's amazing how people only see what they want to see and keep falling into the same old, so far baseless, justifications. Proponents can talk about benefits for football all they want, but there is still a total lack of evidence of any direct benefits for football. Maybe there will be, no one will talk who would know. The whole new scoreboard and sound system canard that's been floating around for ages was, IIRC, put out originally by soccer proponents to justify tearing out part of the stadium as a sort of quid pro quo. Evidence seems to show so far that the only thing the Lindners are putting money into are those that benefit their private business endeavor, i.e., a reconfiguration of the stadium's lower bowl to suit soccer, putting in turf to suit soccer, and adding some furniture to the locker rooms to benefit soccer.
So once again, I don't care if they play soccer there, the extra money UC gets( which is so far largely unknown) and exposure is fine by me. What I care about is fundamentally altering the character of the stadium for football, and affecting the game day football experience as well as interfering with university related activities just to please a secondary tenant, especially when things seem to be successful with the current set up. If it is true, as some are now speculating, that their holding their philanthropic gifts hostage to coerce the university, that is deplorable. If the Lindners want to do something to benefit both sports, how about paying off the debt for the west side addition rather than spending it on reconfiguring the lower bowl?

(09-21-2016 10:38 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:25 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

My understanding is that those seats aren't sold because you can't see the field. Thus, no loss of revenue from tickets.

Houston fans were occupying those seats last Thursday night.

They are primarily the away fan seating allotment...that's why they always appear to be unsold.

(09-21-2016 10:38 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:25 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

My understanding is that those seats aren't sold because you can't see the field. Thus, no loss of revenue from tickets.

Houston fans were occupying those seats last Thursday night.

They typically sell for large games, ie sellouts vs major opponents. UC tries to put opposing fans there, since the view is terrible. I sat in those seats once. The view is absolutely terrible. You cannot see great portions of the field and in most instances the backs of players and personnel. So take it for what it's worth.

I find it interesting individuals continually take Shoemaker's upper level to task, citing terrible views. However, the worst seats in Nippert go away and everyone is up in arms.

Sort of unrelated / related. My wife and I were laughing the other night. Individuals in the burbs always claim Clifton is a war zone of crime and one should not attend UC. However, FCC comes to town and those same people are now suddenly making the trek to Clifton. Welcome to Cincinnati.

(09-21-2016 09:50 AM)Kco17 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:48 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  FCC has gotten a great deal using Nippert, but UC has brought in additional income, more people to campus, more business for the area surrounding campus, a new fun experience for our students, new visitors locker rooms and that's just the stuff we know about.

Can that be proven? What income or money does UC get from the soccer franchise?

Does it offset the costs of having personnel on hand on soccer game days? Is UC or the soccer franchise paying for the extra man hours required to convert the field back and forth between sports?

This is what we know about the contract. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201.../83597078/

UC brings in at least 5k per game in rental fees and 20k per year for facility use.

WOW 5k.

What a one sided deal. Without the use of Nippert what would little prince carl do? Go to PBS? Oh I bet the Browns would rent them the use of PBS, but for a TON more than 5k.

And UC gets a crappier field, gets the stadium compromised, no new sound system, no new video.

And tell me how creating customers for the local Buffalo Wings benefits UC? What is Nippert a Chamber of Commerce? Do these benefitted business pay UC a cut?

(09-21-2016 10:19 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Not attacking you, but using those numbers they have had 17 home games this year. So we made 105,000 on the Soccer team. Thats assuming we had 0 cost, which obviously isn't true. I'd be interested to know how much those seats they removed were going for. Lets say 4,000 seats at $30 a game that is 120,000 a game alone. Multiply that out in perpetuity and we are losing about 620K per year by letting FC Cincinnati use our stadium. I'm not thrilled about that.

UC is not a publicly traded company so you don't have a financial interest and were removing seats that only get used in sellouts; I'm not sure why it would make a difference to you. Even if the whole thing was revenue neutral it's a big bonus to have hundreds of thousands of people experience one of the top 10 most beautiful campuses in the country.