CSNbbs

(11-17-2017 10:35 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:26 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 08:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Lindner wants the infrastructure and parking free with the revenue it generates. Not to mention the millionsnin tax breaks and incentives. Of course he is magnanimous enough to allow the County to pay him $2.8 million a year for 30 year on a payment plan for what he is owed.

Cranley will bend over. He has a statewide campaign to fund the next time around.

Isn't it funny how the deal they requested from UC (alterations to the stadium paid back via concessions) is so similar to the issue presented to them by the county (parking structure paid back using revenues), and yet they're up in arms? Goes to show you just how ****** that deal was for UC.

Actually, the parking garage is even worse. With Nippert, FCC paid for the notches and UC will pay them back. With the parking garage, the taxpayer pays for the structure but FCC wants the revenues. How is that even
legal?

To be fair, in this scenario the taxpayers aren't paying as a collective, only those who attend games/use the lot. It's coming from parking revenues, not taxation...but I get the sentiment.

FCC will argue that those revenues are theirs due to them being the reason why the structure exists and receives revenue...despite them not owning to the fact that the ACTUAL reason anything exists over there would be if the county signs off on it.

But if Lindners are taking the revenues that would otherwise pay for the garage, the taxpayers must pick up the slack. I’m going to assume that this garage will be Stadium-specific, meaning it won’t get much use outside of game day. I may be wrong about that, but Oakley isn’t downtown, where lots are used by a variety of customers.

(11-17-2017 11:48 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:42 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:24 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:15 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]You have lowered the bar so much to try to make this awful thing look good by comparison. But it's still awful.

Carl Lindner's son wants taxpayers to pay for his soccer stadium. In fact, he's indignant that it's even up for debate! How can anyone be on HIS side?

Some of you guys act like this is something unique to Lindner or even sports. Amazon is currently worth $550B (yes that's Billion) and Morgan Stanley among others thinks they could reach $1T by the end of next year which would probably make them the richest company in the world. They're currently sorting through the 238 offers to host their 2nd HQ and cities are offering a bonanza of financial incentives and beyond including at least one proposal to rename their city "Amazon".

Hate Lindners despite their being huge UC benefactors if you want, but they didn't invent the game. We call it competition. You can refuse to play if you want to, but don't expect the world to wait around while you sit pat. There are risks either way.

You're honestly comparing an Amazon HQ to a pro soccer franchise where some think the league is running a Ponzi scheme? Lots of studies showing the promised economic impacts of pro sports facilities never pan out.

It's obviously a different scale both in terms of impact and incentives (duh) but the principle is the same. Lots of people think Amazon is part of a bubble and there's no guaranteeing the GE incentives ever pay out either. It comes down to what do you want for you city and what are you willing to pay for it? Zero can be a legitimate answer but don't be so naive as to think there are no risks to taking that tact either as other cities get what you could have had.

50 years from now football might be illegal unless you use flags and baseball might be about as popular as boxing while the whole world is gaga over pro soccer. Once you are on the outside it can be pretty hard to break into the big time especially when they seem to feel they are at capacity as we know all too well in our hopes to be a G5. Is it worth being left out now and perhaps forever over a parking garage and some sewers? Maybe, but I'm leaning towards the maybe not...

Well, with that line of thinking, maybe we should put in a parking area with public money for every kid's lemonade stand, because who knows, they may be the next Lindner. After all, it's only a difference in scale. LOL

I'm all for a good joke, but they should at least make sense and that entirely misses the point of scale equivalency. As incredibly smaller entities, the incentives for every' kid's lemonade stand would also be much smaller than a parking garage/sewers for FCC. Just like the incentives for a much larger Amazon HQ2 are much larger than FCC's requested parking garage and sewers.

(11-17-2017 12:13 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:35 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:26 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 08:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Lindner wants the infrastructure and parking free with the revenue it generates. Not to mention the millionsnin tax breaks and incentives. Of course he is magnanimous enough to allow the County to pay him $2.8 million a year for 30 year on a payment plan for what he is owed.

Cranley will bend over. He has a statewide campaign to fund the next time around.

Isn't it funny how the deal they requested from UC (alterations to the stadium paid back via concessions) is so similar to the issue presented to them by the county (parking structure paid back using revenues), and yet they're up in arms? Goes to show you just how ****** that deal was for UC.

Actually, the parking garage is even worse. With Nippert, FCC paid for the notches and UC will pay them back. With the parking garage, the taxpayer pays for the structure but FCC wants the revenues. How is that even
legal?

To be fair, in this scenario the taxpayers aren't paying as a collective, only those who attend games/use the lot. It's coming from parking revenues, not taxation...but I get the sentiment.

FCC will argue that those revenues are theirs due to them being the reason why the structure exists and receives revenue...despite them not owning to the fact that the ACTUAL reason anything exists over there would be if the county signs off on it.

But if Lindners are taking the revenues that would otherwise pay for the garage, the taxpayers must pick up the slack. I’m going to assume that this garage will be Stadium-specific, meaning it won’t get much use outside of game day. I may be wrong about that, but Oakley isn’t downtown, where lots are used by a variety of customers.

Why would it get much use on anything other than game day? Crossroads Church, Meiers, and the movie theater, that border this parcel on all sides have a ton of parking. Residential units there do too. MadTree does too. Never had any issues there. This is a single use structure for one family's private venture maybe 30 days a year that may get some runoff occasionally but nothing to warrant an additional 1,000 spaces.

Its not tax money or from the general funds but it is most certainly County revenue. Means money that can be used for other expenses. They can pound sand if they want the freebies and the revenue from it.

(11-17-2017 11:16 AM)TubaCat Wrote: [ -> ]I'm personally hoping they get their own stadium to be out of our hair, but remain minor league forever or move to Columbus. With 2 major pro sports franchises already, we do NOT need any more competition. I'd prefer it to be just us and the Reds, which is looking possible not too far down the road.

If FCC isn't going to be playing in Nippert, I'd rather see them fail after bilking Newport for a shiny new stadium to look pretty on that side of the river.

Adding a stadium in Oakley does nothing to improve the blimp shots of downtown and that is the only benefit I see to this entire Linder vanity project.

(11-17-2017 12:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:48 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:42 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:24 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]Some of you guys act like this is something unique to Lindner or even sports. Amazon is currently worth $550B (yes that's Billion) and Morgan Stanley among others thinks they could reach $1T by the end of next year which would probably make them the richest company in the world. They're currently sorting through the 238 offers to host their 2nd HQ and cities are offering a bonanza of financial incentives and beyond including at least one proposal to rename their city "Amazon".

Hate Lindners despite their being huge UC benefactors if you want, but they didn't invent the game. We call it competition. You can refuse to play if you want to, but don't expect the world to wait around while you sit pat. There are risks either way.

You're honestly comparing an Amazon HQ to a pro soccer franchise where some think the league is running a Ponzi scheme? Lots of studies showing the promised economic impacts of pro sports facilities never pan out.

It's obviously a different scale both in terms of impact and incentives (duh) but the principle is the same. Lots of people think Amazon is part of a bubble and there's no guaranteeing the GE incentives ever pay out either. It comes down to what do you want for you city and what are you willing to pay for it? Zero can be a legitimate answer but don't be so naive as to think there are no risks to taking that tact either as other cities get what you could have had.

50 years from now football might be illegal unless you use flags and baseball might be about as popular as boxing while the whole world is gaga over pro soccer. Once you are on the outside it can be pretty hard to break into the big time especially when they seem to feel they are at capacity as we know all too well in our hopes to be a G5. Is it worth being left out now and perhaps forever over a parking garage and some sewers? Maybe, but I'm leaning towards the maybe not...

Well, with that line of thinking, maybe we should put in a parking area with public money for every kid's lemonade stand, because who knows, they may be the next Lindner. After all, it's only a difference in scale. LOL

I'm all for a good joke, but they should at least make sense and that entirely misses the point of scale equivalency. As incredibly smaller entities, the incentives for every' kid's lemonade stand would also be much smaller than a parking garage/sewers for FCC. Just like the incentives for a much larger Amazon HQ2 are much larger than FCC's requested parking garage and sewers.

Yeah, but that's my point, that IMO, the scale of equivalency between Amazon Headquarters and a soccer club are about the same as a decent size corporate business and a lemonade stand. In the end I believe each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it makes economic sense, there's nothing wrong with incentives, but if it's a one way street and you get screwed, it sucks. Just ask the people in Indiana where Carrier got a bunch of public incentives, The President claimed he saved a bunch of jobs, and then a few months later, the jobs went off to Mexico after all and the local workers got laid off, yet Carrier kept the money.

(11-17-2017 12:13 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:35 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:26 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 10:01 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 08:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Lindner wants the infrastructure and parking free with the revenue it generates. Not to mention the millionsnin tax breaks and incentives. Of course he is magnanimous enough to allow the County to pay him $2.8 million a year for 30 year on a payment plan for what he is owed.

Cranley will bend over. He has a statewide campaign to fund the next time around.

Isn't it funny how the deal they requested from UC (alterations to the stadium paid back via concessions) is so similar to the issue presented to them by the county (parking structure paid back using revenues), and yet they're up in arms? Goes to show you just how ****** that deal was for UC.

Actually, the parking garage is even worse. With Nippert, FCC paid for the notches and UC will pay them back. With the parking garage, the taxpayer pays for the structure but FCC wants the revenues. How is that even
legal?

To be fair, in this scenario the taxpayers aren't paying as a collective, only those who attend games/use the lot. It's coming from parking revenues, not taxation...but I get the sentiment.

FCC will argue that those revenues are theirs due to them being the reason why the structure exists and receives revenue...despite them not owning to the fact that the ACTUAL reason anything exists over there would be if the county signs off on it.

But if Lindners are taking the revenues that would otherwise pay for the garage, the taxpayers must pick up the slack. I’m going to assume that this garage will be Stadium-specific, meaning it won’t get much use outside of game day. I may be wrong about that, but Oakley isn’t downtown, where lots are used by a variety of customers.

It was more a point of clarity than any measure of disagreement on my part. With that being said, my understanding is that the County would pay for the construction of the garage out of an existing pot, not fleece new ticketing/parking revenues, the recoup their initial investment from the cost of parking in the garage and eventually gain another source of revenue. Either way, it's still use of public money for this, and would only be even mildly warranted IMO if the county receives the revenue from the venture.

(11-17-2017 11:56 AM)bctn8n Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:45 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:28 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]Of course they're not on the same scale, but by the same token Amazon isn't just looking for a parking garage and some new sewers either. And Lindner may or may not need this area, but MLS surely doesn't. Cincinnati's owners are competing with another dozen or so other owners who are probably all also looking for help in some form from their respective cities that they will be named after and arguably represent.

Quote:Cincinnati is never going to win the competition to give public money to attract private businesses. It's such a losers game. But at the very least, don't do it for a sports team that can't go anywhere else!

What? GE is only worth a measly $159B, but GE got over $100M in incentives to locate down at the Baniks so clearly Cincinnati can compete in some instances. Neither GE nor an MLS FCC team has to be in Cincinnati but a lot of people think both are good things nonetheless. The basic question is the same: What's it worth to you to incentivize them to be here? You can answer zero, but don't be surprised when you lose out to other more aggressive cities on things you'd like to have here whether it's major corporations or an MLS team.

This is getting off topic, but, yeah man, I know that Cincinnati gave GE a bunch of money to build their operations center. They haven't even filled it with enough employees to get all of their tax breaks, and the Banks is still losing businesses left and right. I'm hopeful it works out over time. My point was, playing the game of giving handouts to companies is not one that Cincinnati will win overall. But at the very least, do it as intelligently as possible, don't pony up for some billionaire's soccer stadium.

GE only gets that money from the city if they reached the promise of 2000 jobs. Which is not going to happen with more layoffs coming.

Got any details for that? They may not get the entire $100+M from the state/county/city if they don't hire enough, but they've already gotten $1M in tax credits from the state. Details are hard to find, but I don't think the city has any leverage over workforce. The "big" (only?) stick they have are damages if GE breaks the lease which effectively covers 20 years at least from what little I've seen.

i work in the building. Plenty of layoffs have already happened and will continue to happen. The agreement was that at the end of 2017 there would be 2000 employees. There is talk however of moving other GE businesses to the banks to get to said 2000.

(11-17-2017 12:08 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]There's a quality of life and cultural factor that you get from professional sports that you don't get from adding a not all that large corporate office. I think there's also a respect/image factor with sports that can have a wide ranging effect both nationally and locally. What's all that worth? Hard to say, maybe nothing. I mean some people like living in Akron (and I'm not picking on them). But I think a lot of people prefer having the Reds/Bengals in town even if they frequently bring misery. Of course, not much unites a city across all races, religions and income classes than a local team competing for and winning a Championship.

Ah, the quality of life factor. Civic pride. That is what sports team owners turned to once their sports-teams-spur-the-local-economy theory was shot to hell. Move to a squishy standard. I'll buy it, but I don't see where the market failure is that would require government funding. Perhaps I just don't understand or appreciate what a big time city we'll become if we get that soccer team. Plus, we already have the Reds and the Bengals (and the Bearcats and the Musketeers), so the marginal improvement to civic pride from getting an MLS team has to be less than it would be in Akron. I wonder why Lindner isn't look there? Or even Newport, which is apparently willing to give him everything he wants? I guess we'll chalk it up to his philanthropic attitude to us Cincinnatians. Bless him.

Remember, he's just a philanthropist who has never asked for anything in return.

(11-17-2017 12:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:48 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:42 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:24 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]You're honestly comparing an Amazon HQ to a pro soccer franchise where some think the league is running a Ponzi scheme? Lots of studies showing the promised economic impacts of pro sports facilities never pan out.

It's obviously a different scale both in terms of impact and incentives (duh) but the principle is the same. Lots of people think Amazon is part of a bubble and there's no guaranteeing the GE incentives ever pay out either. It comes down to what do you want for you city and what are you willing to pay for it? Zero can be a legitimate answer but don't be so naive as to think there are no risks to taking that tact either as other cities get what you could have had.

50 years from now football might be illegal unless you use flags and baseball might be about as popular as boxing while the whole world is gaga over pro soccer. Once you are on the outside it can be pretty hard to break into the big time especially when they seem to feel they are at capacity as we know all too well in our hopes to be a G5. Is it worth being left out now and perhaps forever over a parking garage and some sewers? Maybe, but I'm leaning towards the maybe not...

Well, with that line of thinking, maybe we should put in a parking area with public money for every kid's lemonade stand, because who knows, they may be the next Lindner. After all, it's only a difference in scale. LOL

I'm all for a good joke, but they should at least make sense and that entirely misses the point of scale equivalency. As incredibly smaller entities, the incentives for every' kid's lemonade stand would also be much smaller than a parking garage/sewers for FCC. Just like the incentives for a much larger Amazon HQ2 are much larger than FCC's requested parking garage and sewers.

Yeah, but that's my point, that IMO, the scale of equivalency between Amazon Headquarters and a soccer club are about the same as a decent size corporate business and a lemonade stand. In the end I believe each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it makes economic sense, there's nothing wrong with incentives, but if it's a one way street and you get screwed, it sucks. Just ask the people in Indiana where Carrier got a bunch of public incentives, The President claimed he saved a bunch of jobs, and then a few months later, the jobs went off to Mexico after all and the local workers got laid off, yet Carrier kept the money.

I still think it's absurd to equate a lemonade stand with an MLS soccer franchise but believe what you want. BTW, you also seem to be simply mistaken on the Carrier situation as the specific jobs you seem to be talking about were never part of Trump's deal to stay (unless something has changed from June 27 per this politifact analysis update which despite clearly being no fan of Trump's still gives him a full PROMISE KEPT.)

But we can agree that these things need to be taken on a case by case basis and not every deal makes sense. My main point in this exchange has been that quite a few around here think this situation is unique to Lindner and/or sports rather than just plain old business in the USA.

(11-17-2017 12:44 PM)bctn8n Wrote: [ -> ]i work in the building. Plenty of layoffs have already happened and will continue to happen. The agreement was that at the end of 2017 there would be 2000 employees. There is talk however of moving other GE businesses to the banks to get to said 2000.

I think the heart of the issue is 2000 "or what?" I don't believe they lose all $100M+ in incentives if they don't have 2000 employees there at the end of the year. If so and that's the only requirement they need to meet I think it's a pretty certain sure thing they'll make that happen even if they have to lay them all off on Jan. 1 But per my point, I don't think that's the whole deal.

(11-17-2017 01:00 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:48 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:42 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]It's obviously a different scale both in terms of impact and incentives (duh) but the principle is the same. Lots of people think Amazon is part of a bubble and there's no guaranteeing the GE incentives ever pay out either. It comes down to what do you want for you city and what are you willing to pay for it? Zero can be a legitimate answer but don't be so naive as to think there are no risks to taking that tact either as other cities get what you could have had.

50 years from now football might be illegal unless you use flags and baseball might be about as popular as boxing while the whole world is gaga over pro soccer. Once you are on the outside it can be pretty hard to break into the big time especially when they seem to feel they are at capacity as we know all too well in our hopes to be a G5. Is it worth being left out now and perhaps forever over a parking garage and some sewers? Maybe, but I'm leaning towards the maybe not...

Well, with that line of thinking, maybe we should put in a parking area with public money for every kid's lemonade stand, because who knows, they may be the next Lindner. After all, it's only a difference in scale. LOL

I'm all for a good joke, but they should at least make sense and that entirely misses the point of scale equivalency. As incredibly smaller entities, the incentives for every' kid's lemonade stand would also be much smaller than a parking garage/sewers for FCC. Just like the incentives for a much larger Amazon HQ2 are much larger than FCC's requested parking garage and sewers.

Yeah, but that's my point, that IMO, the scale of equivalency between Amazon Headquarters and a soccer club are about the same as a decent size corporate business and a lemonade stand. In the end I believe each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it makes economic sense, there's nothing wrong with incentives, but if it's a one way street and you get screwed, it sucks. Just ask the people in Indiana where Carrier got a bunch of public incentives, The President claimed he saved a bunch of jobs, and then a few months later, the jobs went off to Mexico after all and the local workers got laid off, yet Carrier kept the money.

I still think it's absurd to equate a lemonade stand with an MLS soccer franchise but believe what you want. You also seem to be simply mistaken on the Carrier situation as the specific jobs you seem to be talking about were never part of Trump's deal to stay (unless something has changed from June 27 per this politifact analysis update which despite clearly being no fan of Trump's still gives him a 100% PROMISE KEPT.)

But we can agree that these things need to be taken on a case by case basis and not every deal makes sense. My main point in this exchange has been that quite a few around here think this situation is unique to Lindner and/or sports rather than just plain old business in the USA.

To compare an MLS franchise to Amazon is beyond absurd, but I guess you glossed over the part I said about relative scale of equivalency.
With regard to Trump, he touted how "jobs" were saved, but gave no public indication of the impending layoffs, which obviously would take quite a shine off the deal in terms of general public perception. In the end, the devil's in the details. Kind of like how the Lindners are trying to spin how the soccer team will be a great economic engine, just trust us

(11-17-2017 12:49 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:08 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]There's a quality of life and cultural factor that you get from professional sports that you don't get from adding a not all that large corporate office. I think there's also a respect/image factor with sports that can have a wide ranging effect both nationally and locally. What's all that worth? Hard to say, maybe nothing. I mean some people like living in Akron (and I'm not picking on them). But I think a lot of people prefer having the Reds/Bengals in town even if they frequently bring misery. Of course, not much unites a city across all races, religions and income classes than a local team competing for and winning a Championship.

Ah, the quality of life factor. Civic pride. That is what sports team owners turned to once their sports-teams-spur-the-local-economy theory was shot to hell. Move to a squishy standard. I'll buy it, but I don't see where the market failure is that would require government funding. Perhaps I just don't understand or appreciate what a big time city we'll become if we get that soccer team. Plus, we already have the Reds and the Bengals (and the Bearcats and the Musketeers), so the marginal improvement to civic pride from getting an MLS team has to be less than it would be in Akron. I wonder why Lindner isn't look there? Or even Newport, which is apparently willing to give him everything he wants? I guess we'll chalk it up to his philanthropic attitude to us Cincinnatians. Bless him.

I don't think it's just sports team's owners who take pride in their local sports teams. Heck with a nearly unlimited choice of places to voice your opinion on this primarily poitical issue, you're doing it on a basically local sports promotion board right here. If you somehow want to argue that major college sports aren't basically money grabs just like the pros I guess you can do that. But notice that probably the two most popular OT threads here are the Reds and Bengals one and this isn't even one of the primary boards of either of them. Sometimes it's in misery rather than euphoria, but I still challenge you to come up with anything else that unites a community across nearly all its divisions the way professional sports often does. I think that adds real value, but I guess I can sort of understand if you think its meaningless at least to you personally.

Similarly, you could argue that the FCC hoopla that grabbed this city is just a fad that will die out or perhaps that it will continue even if they remain in the low minor leagues and stay at Nippert if that's an option. You might be right. But when I look to the future I see MLB on the decline and I'm not sure exactly what they can do to engage our youth in the future the way they used to be. And maybe it's just a bump in the road, but the NFL is now reeling more than they have in decades between the concussion issue and politics and whatever else is causing its attendance and tv ratings to plummet. If those trends continue, I believe something will rise in it's place and I don't think it will be hockey. Maybe it will be basketball or maybe something else, but if I had to bet (and I'm talking about the next few decades) I'd go with soccer and it's hard to see Cincinnati ever getting a better opportunity to join the club at the highest level than right now...

As far as why Cincinnati, I think that's got to do with both the quality of the market opportunity and the fact that it's their hometown. I don't think they could carry over all their FCC momentum and fan support to an Akron MLS team. As far as Newport goes, I personally don't have a problem with it even if a lot of FCC fans apparently do which is a significant risk to locating there. But I'm not sure where you get your facts from if you think Newport has agreed to anything. They say they haven't had any recent serious talks and presumably won't unless Oakley falls through.

Leagues make their "real" money on television rights, or expansion fees. I want the MSL to succeed, but the business model doesn't work.

Nashville's proposed $250M stadium has seating capacity of 27,500 - which would be one of the largest in the MLS - for ~20 home dates. How do you make money from only the gate based on those figures? Furthermore, would you pay a $150M expansion fee to join that party?

MLS attendance up, TV ratings lag as US mulls future

NEW YORK
Major League Soccer's attendance is up and fan interest is booming, even if television broadcasts are far less popular and some young Americans would rather play in Europe.

MLS averaged 22,000 in attendance for the first time in its history this season, ranked among the top seven leagues in the world. The league is set to add a second Los Angeles franchise next year, announce two expansion cities next month and at some point finalize David Beckham's long-pending Miami club.

But viewers averaged under 300,000 for nationally televised regular-season matches, fewer than the average for a New York Yankees game on their regional sports network.

Average attendance is up 60 percent from 13,756 in 2000, boosted this year by 48,200 for Atlanta in its opening season. MLS trails only the Germany's Bundesliga, England's Premier League, Spain's La Liga, Mexico's Liga MX, the Chinese Super League and Serie A, with Italy's first division ahead by only 22,177 to 22,106.

But that has not translated yet into big television ratings.

ESPN averaged 272,000 for 30 telecasts this regular season on ESPN and ESPN2, and Fox averaged 236,000 for 33 broadcasts on FS1 and Fox. In addition, Univision is averaging 250,000 viewers for its Spanish-language MLS telecasts.

But the Premier League attracts a larger audience, averaging 422,000 on NBC, NBCSN and CNBC, even though many matches are on weekend mornings.

(11-17-2017 01:22 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 01:00 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 11:48 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]Well, with that line of thinking, maybe we should put in a parking area with public money for every kid's lemonade stand, because who knows, they may be the next Lindner. After all, it's only a difference in scale. LOL

I'm all for a good joke, but they should at least make sense and that entirely misses the point of scale equivalency. As incredibly smaller entities, the incentives for every' kid's lemonade stand would also be much smaller than a parking garage/sewers for FCC. Just like the incentives for a much larger Amazon HQ2 are much larger than FCC's requested parking garage and sewers.

Yeah, but that's my point, that IMO, the scale of equivalency between Amazon Headquarters and a soccer club are about the same as a decent size corporate business and a lemonade stand. In the end I believe each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it makes economic sense, there's nothing wrong with incentives, but if it's a one way street and you get screwed, it sucks. Just ask the people in Indiana where Carrier got a bunch of public incentives, The President claimed he saved a bunch of jobs, and then a few months later, the jobs went off to Mexico after all and the local workers got laid off, yet Carrier kept the money.

I still think it's absurd to equate a lemonade stand with an MLS soccer franchise but believe what you want. You also seem to be simply mistaken on the Carrier situation as the specific jobs you seem to be talking about were never part of Trump's deal to stay (unless something has changed from June 27 per this politifact analysis update which despite clearly being no fan of Trump's still gives him a 100% PROMISE KEPT.)

But we can agree that these things need to be taken on a case by case basis and not every deal makes sense. My main point in this exchange has been that quite a few around here think this situation is unique to Lindner and/or sports rather than just plain old business in the USA.

To compare an MLS franchise to Amazon is beyond absurd, but I guess you glossed over the part I said about relative scale of equivalency.
With regard to Trump, he touted how "jobs" were saved, but gave no public indication of the impending layoffs, which obviously would take quite a shine off the deal in terms of general public perception. In the end, the devil's in the details. Kind of like how the Lindners are trying to spin how the soccer team will be a great economic engine, just trust us

In the interest of preserving the idea that jokes should actually have humor, i'll try one last time to break this down. The premise of your joke is that MLS FCC is as desirable to a community as a child's lemonade stand so if FCC asks for a parking garage, we should give one to every lemonade stand too. It's a foolish equivalency that despite clear evidence to the contrary (e.g. sales for starters), only you seem to advocate, but whatever gives you the giggles I guess.

And unless you have more factual information that you refuse to divulge, you are completely WRONG about Trump not following through on his Carrier deal. That some of the jobs were still going was always public knowledge and were never claimed to be part of the deal:

Quote:But these particular job losses were always going to happen, and Carrier made that fact known at the same time it announced the deal.

It's in the link, all you have to do is read it...

(11-17-2017 01:42 PM)Romell Shorter Wrote: [ -> ]Leagues make their "real" money on television rights, or expansion fees. I want the MSL to succeed, but the business model doesn't work.

Nashville's proposed $250M stadium has seating capacity of 27,500 - which would be one of the largest in the MLS - for ~20 home dates. How do you make money from only the gate based on those figures? Furthermore, would you pay a $150M expansion fee to join that party?

MLS attendance up, TV ratings lag as US mulls future

NEW YORK
Major League Soccer's attendance is up and fan interest is booming, even if television broadcasts are far less popular and some young Americans would rather play in Europe.

MLS averaged 22,000 in attendance for the first time in its history this season, ranked among the top seven leagues in the world. The league is set to add a second Los Angeles franchise next year, announce two expansion cities next month and at some point finalize David Beckham's long-pending Miami club.

But viewers averaged under 300,000 for nationally televised regular-season matches, fewer than the average for a New York Yankees game on their regional sports network.

Average attendance is up 60 percent from 13,756 in 2000, boosted this year by 48,200 for Atlanta in its opening season. MLS trails only the Germany's Bundesliga, England's Premier League, Spain's La Liga, Mexico's Liga MX, the Chinese Super League and Serie A, with Italy's first division ahead by only 22,177 to 22,106.

But that has not translated yet into big television ratings.

ESPN averaged 272,000 for 30 telecasts this regular season on ESPN and ESPN2, and Fox averaged 236,000 for 33 broadcasts on FS1 and Fox. In addition, Univision is averaging 250,000 viewers for its Spanish-language MLS telecasts.

But the Premier League attracts a larger audience, averaging 422,000 on NBC, NBCSN and CNBC, even though many matches are on weekend mornings.

I would say that's the EPL's biggest asset, not a negative, to why they have the viewership numbers. I can roll out of bed at 7:30am on a Saturday and toss on a soccer game while I wake up.

(11-17-2017 01:54 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 01:22 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 01:00 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:32 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-17-2017 12:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]I'm all for a good joke, but they should at least make sense and that entirely misses the point of scale equivalency. As incredibly smaller entities, the incentives for every' kid's lemonade stand would also be much smaller than a parking garage/sewers for FCC. Just like the incentives for a much larger Amazon HQ2 are much larger than FCC's requested parking garage and sewers.

Yeah, but that's my point, that IMO, the scale of equivalency between Amazon Headquarters and a soccer club are about the same as a decent size corporate business and a lemonade stand. In the end I believe each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If it makes economic sense, there's nothing wrong with incentives, but if it's a one way street and you get screwed, it sucks. Just ask the people in Indiana where Carrier got a bunch of public incentives, The President claimed he saved a bunch of jobs, and then a few months later, the jobs went off to Mexico after all and the local workers got laid off, yet Carrier kept the money.

I still think it's absurd to equate a lemonade stand with an MLS soccer franchise but believe what you want. You also seem to be simply mistaken on the Carrier situation as the specific jobs you seem to be talking about were never part of Trump's deal to stay (unless something has changed from June 27 per this politifact analysis update which despite clearly being no fan of Trump's still gives him a 100% PROMISE KEPT.)

But we can agree that these things need to be taken on a case by case basis and not every deal makes sense. My main point in this exchange has been that quite a few around here think this situation is unique to Lindner and/or sports rather than just plain old business in the USA.

To compare an MLS franchise to Amazon is beyond absurd, but I guess you glossed over the part I said about relative scale of equivalency.
With regard to Trump, he touted how "jobs" were saved, but gave no public indication of the impending layoffs, which obviously would take quite a shine off the deal in terms of general public perception. In the end, the devil's in the details. Kind of like how the Lindners are trying to spin how the soccer team will be a great economic engine, just trust us

In the interest of preserving the idea that jokes should actually have humor, i'll try one last time to break this down. You can compare anything to anything. I said Amazon is larger than FCC MLS, thus they are looking for MORE in incentives than the likes of a parking garage and sewers. Similarly FCC MLS is larger than a lemonade stand thus they are looking for MORE incentives than a lemonade stand would get which is typically nothing. Your "joke" relies on the assumption that despite being a much smaller enterprise, a lemonade stand should also get a parking garage just like the much larger FCC MLS effort. That's the exact opposite logic of my comparisons and doesn't make sense as a "joke", but whatever gives you the giggles I guess.

And unless you have more factual information that you refuse to divulge, you are completely WRONG about Trump not following through on his promise. That some of the jobs were still going was always public knowledge and were never claimed to be part of the deal:

Quote:But these particular job losses were always going to happen, and Carrier made that fact known at the same time it announced the deal.

It's in the link, all you have to do is read it...

Amazon>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MLS franchise>>>>lemonade stand.

The selective parsing continues. Carrier may have divulged the impending job loses, but The President didn't when he speechified about it.

(11-17-2017 12:03 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep.

We should give a bunch of money to someone to run a soul food restaraunt down there instead.

And call it Mahogany II

If I were Hamilton County I would let Newport have GCNP FCC. The NKY Riverfront has benefited from Reds, Bengals and USBA for years. Perhaps the Banks and downtown can leech off of Newport.

Being from Butler County and not a kickball fan I could care less.