While out of town, I listening to a sports show about the NFL Realignment.. The Rams, Chargers and Raiders have recently moved.. They said that the main driver was who offered the biggest, best stadium.. Evidently, San Diego is not happy about losing the Chargers and are planning to do whatever is needed to get another team.. They said that team will be a "small market' team that is at the end of their contract and needs an upgraded stadium.. That sounds like the Bengals to me... I don't think Cincinnati is going
to build Mike Brown a $1.5 billion stadium...

(04-06-2017 09:43 AM)KCat Wrote:  While out of town, I listening to a sports show about the NFL Realignment.. The Rams, Chargers and Raiders have recently moved.. They said that the main driver was who offered the biggest, best stadium.. Evidently, San Diego is not happy about losing the Chargers and are planning to do whatever is needed to get another team.. They said that team will be a "small market' team that is at the end of their contract and needs an upgraded stadium.. That sounds like the Bengals to me... I don't think Cincinnati is going
to build Mike Brown a $1.5 billion stadium...

If they do it better be under the city/county terms instead of Mike Brown's. And if he doesn't like it, then he can leave.

But I have no idea where all of that money would come from - certainly not the Bengals.

Cincinnati should have built a domed stadium when PBS was built, but the Bengals held the city hostage and got what they wanted.

Then, sayonara! This town already got cornholed once... It won't vote for another taxpayer funded stadium for a generation.

I would hate, hate, hate to see the Bengals leave. But at least it would play to UC's benefit.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

San Diego was given every opportunity to build a stadium to keep the chargers. They were still in a cookie cutter stadium which most cities replaced 15 years ago. They're not getting another team.

At some point Mike Brown will have a better deal with a new stadium in another city versus his obscenely team friendly deal on an older PBS but I think we're at least 5 years away from that.

Cincinnati's deal with the Bengals has been described as the worst in the NFL.. When you consider that the county built the stadium, provides all maintenance, pays for all upgrades, purchases all unsold tickets, the game day parking concessions for all lots in the area, lack of naming rights, it is not a great deal..
The worth of the Bengal's franchise is ranked 30th out of 32 teams, the revenue is at the bottom, attendance is 28th and in this market, with this stadium, there is little chance to improve.. This is a deal that does not work for the City or the team...
Cincinnati is a small market trying to support (2) pro teams (unlike Buffalo with one team).. Also,, the tax base for the team stops at the river, no one in Kentucky is paying anything, it all falls on Hamilton County...

I have a knack for not understanding the business side to sports very well. Can someone explain the reason owners want new stadiums so bad? Are they thinking they will get more butts in the seats? I guess I don't get it.

(04-06-2017 10:09 AM)KCat Wrote:  Cincinnati's deal with the Bengals has been described as the worst in the NFL.

Worst for the community...best for the team. Actually, I take that back, Jerry's World is the best for both.

Wow, it would be like a dream coming true! My only fear is that since Mike Brown's contract with the city/county is already so one-sided, there is no way any sane city would be willing to beat it. I'm not sure when the contract ends, but I would guess a move like this may become more likely the closer we get to the end of the contract.

Imagine, 5 years from now:

The Bearcats, now in full control of their market during football season, are back in a power conference...

PBS is now enclosed (somehow) and regularly hosts the biggest names in entertainment...

Cincinnati no longer has to deal with Mike Brown's poor coaches and lawless players...

And it's all because Mike Brown took his Bungles and left for greener ($) pastures.

A man can dream. A man can dream.

(04-06-2017 10:11 AM)jarr Wrote:  I have a knack for not understanding the business side to sports very well. Can someone explain the reason owners want new stadiums so bad? Are they thinking they will get more butts in the seats? I guess I don't get it.

I've thought the exact same thing before. Especially when a team pays an extreme amount for it like jerry jones did. But if you think about it like nipperts expansion these grand stadiums offer enormous revenue opportunities. A stadium like the cowboys host huge college football and basketball games, concerts, weddings, monster truck shows, x games etc. Along with that sponsors are much more likely to put their brand on a stadium know around the world than some dump like San Diego's and they pay boat loads for it. Finally, I think these owners 1) All have huge egos 2) Football owners seems to really take pride in their team unlike most other sports (except mike brown) and take pride in what they've built whether that's structurally or organizationally.

(04-06-2017 10:09 AM)KCat Wrote:  Cincinnati's deal with the Bengals has been described as the worst in the NFL.. When you consider that the county built the stadium, provides all maintenance, pays for all upgrades, purchases all unsold tickets, the game day parking concessions for all lots in the area, lack of naming rights, it is not a great deal..
The worth of the Bengal's franchise is ranked 30th out of 32 teams, the revenue is at the bottom, attendance is 28th and in this market, with this stadium, there is little chance to improve.. This is a deal that does not work for the City or the team...
Cincinnati is a small market trying to support (2) pro teams (unlike Buffalo with one team).. Also,, the tax base for the team stops at the river, no one in Kentucky is paying anything, it all falls on Hamilton County...

There's ONE reason why the franchise is 30th in worth, and attendance is 28th - IT SUCKS! It hasn't won a playoff game in about a generation's time. When it did go to its two Super Bowls, it didn't even get out of bed for the first one, and in the second, fumble-fingered away two interceptions which would have sealed the deal.

Can, even Bengals fans, reasonably expect future improvement? Seriously?

Anyway, the Bengals' financial position has nothing to do with the deal - an EXTREMELY favorable one for them.

Man, I could only hope the Bengals would leave. That would be a dream for UC Football. Also, it wouldn't take much work to scrub PBS of all Bengals references since it's one of the most generic stadium setups in the NFL. Maybe they could use that space to coax a entertainment group (not named Nederlander) and could finance a multi-use, state-of-the-art arena that could attract music acts. Or we could double down on futbol and give it to FCC (after updating with all of the appropriate notches in the lower bowl, of course.)

Last year has pretty much shown that the NFL's answer to taxpayer resistance to their extortion is to start playing musical chairs with franchises and pair them up with cities desperate (and foolish) enough to open the piggy bank. I doubt too many franchises will be truly safe, and the Bengals look like a very likely one to go carpetbagging when their current deal is up.

In the long run, I think it will start to radically deteriorate their fan support. That's why I think the league is heding their bet and gone all in on supporting fantasy as a means to disassociate interest from actually rooting for a team with a local/regional history.

Personally, I haven't given two **** about the NFL since high school and have no interest in the actual teams or in fantasy. Hell, I haven't even watched a Super Bowl in probably 20 years, and I don't miss a damned thing about it.

I also LOL at anyone who refers to Cincinnati as a "small-market" team. While our city population is around 300k, it shows a complete lack of understanding of our geographical area. We have over 2 million people in the tri-state area and, once we combine with Dayton will statistically have a top 20 media market.

Does anyone see Mike Brown shelling out the numbers in this blurb?

Quote:The Raiders aren’t packing for Vegas yet, but there may be no stopping them now. The league has made workable one potential road block for owner Mark Davis’ team, setting a range of $325 million to $375 million for the franchise’s relocation fee, sources tell The MMQB. That's relatively affordable compared to the $650 million the Rams and Chargers each paid to relocate to Los Angeles.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/03/22/las-v...s-meetings

(04-06-2017 09:43 AM)KCat Wrote:  While out of town, I listening to a sports show about the NFL Realignment.. The Rams, Chargers and Raiders have recently moved.. They said that the main driver was who offered the biggest, best stadium.. Evidently, San Diego is not happy about losing the Chargers and are planning to do whatever is needed to get another team.. They said that team will be a "small market' team that is at the end of their contract and needs an upgraded stadium.. That sounds like the Bengals to me... I don't think Cincinnati is going
to build Mike Brown a $1.5 billion stadium...

Bengals do not pay rent anymore. Not sure that the lease could force them to stay.
I would be surprised if San Diego could garner support to build a new stadium.

When is the Bengals' deal with the city up?

The stadium is 17 years old... it is the 16th-newest stadium in the NFL, so right in the middle. What exactly is the problem?

See ya Bengals.

Hell, turn PBS into a badass MLS stadium for FCC

(04-06-2017 12:32 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  When is the Bengals' deal with the city up?

The Bengals deal is with the county.

I like the NFL but decided twenty years ago I could no longer support a Mike Brown business. That said regardless of my feelings on him I'll never support public money for professional franchises again. These are highly profitable businesses​ and can afford to build their own stadiums. Let someone else waste their taxpayers money