The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

You have it backwards.

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

I was always under the impression that the notch agreement was the other way around. FCC fronted the cost and UC was paying them back by allowing FCC to take all concession revenue until the up-front was recouped...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Now the pay to return to original state is on FCC, that one you've got correct.

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

I was always under the impression that the notch agreement was the other way around. FCC fronted the cost and UC was paying them back by allowing FCC to take all concession revenue until the up-front was recouped...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Now the pay to return to original state is on FCC, that one you've got correct.

And it was concessions at FCC games only, correct?

It will never be replaced back to how it was. UC will instead take less and put it towards the bottom line or will negotiate to end the concessions payout to pay for the build out.

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

I was always under the impression that the notch agreement was the other way around. FCC fronted the cost and UC was paying them back by allowing FCC to take all concession revenue until the up-front was recouped...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Now the pay to return to original state is on FCC, that one you've got correct.

I doubt the NOTCHES are ever removed. Mike Bohn is on tape saying they were a safety thing. If you remove them and a player is hurt running into the wall it would make for an easy lawsuit.

Why would we ever remove the notches, we can't fill the stands as it stands. Moreover, they have been using the space to advertise for the corporate sponsors.

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

(11-17-2017 10:15 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:48 AM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  simply put the deal FCC presented to the county is the most city/county friendly deal in all of major sports. Not a single other franchise in major pro sports(if FCC gets to MLS) will have ever financed their own stadium 100% privately.

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.

What Amazon is doing is despicable, but Cincinnati has no chance in that race. In any case, it's not a soccer franchise. No one is even arguing that FCC would boost employment or tax receipts or investment in the city, because none of those things is true. And Amazon can pick anywhere they want, but Lindner needs this area.

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!

(11-17-2017 10:51 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

You have it backwards.

Yeah, I guess so...

I was already pretty wary of this FCC deal to begin with, but the fact that WE are the ones ultimately paying for reduced capacity and ugly notches is absolutely heinous.

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.

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

I was always under the impression that the notch agreement was the other way around. FCC fronted the cost and UC was paying them back by... 1. allowing FCC to take all concession revenue at FCC games until the up-front was recouped...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

2. Now the pay to return to original state is on FCC, that one you've got correct.

1. This is correct.

2. This is also correct.

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

(11-17-2017 10:15 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:48 AM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  simply put the deal FCC presented to the county is the most city/county friendly deal in all of major sports. Not a single other franchise in major pro sports(if FCC gets to MLS) will have ever financed their own stadium 100% privately.

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.

(11-17-2017 11:14 AM)levydl Wrote:  

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

(11-17-2017 10:15 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:48 AM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  simply put the deal FCC presented to the county is the most city/county friendly deal in all of major sports. Not a single other franchise in major pro sports(if FCC gets to MLS) will have ever financed their own stadium 100% privately.

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.

What Amazon is doing is despicable, but Cincinnati has no chance in that race. In any case, it's not a soccer franchise. No one is even arguing that FCC would boost employment or tax receipts or investment in the city, because none of those things is true. And Amazon can pick anywhere they want, but Lindner needs this area.

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 (including state and county) to locate down at the Baniks (which they didn't build nor finance btw) 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.

(11-17-2017 10:56 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:52 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 10:50 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Whoa whoa whoa, didn't UC front the cost for the notches with FCC paying them back with concessions revenue over time? That's the opposite of what is being said now.

And isn't there a stipulation in the contract that if FCC moves, they are required to pay for returning the stadium to its previous configuration?

I was always under the impression that the notch agreement was the other way around. FCC fronted the cost and UC was paying them back by allowing FCC to take all concession revenue until the up-front was recouped...I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Now the pay to return to original state is on FCC, that one you've got correct.

I doubt the NOTCHES are ever removed. Mike Bohn is on tape saying they were a safety thing. If you remove them and a player is hurt running into the wall it would make for an easy lawsuit.

Oh I completely agree, and besides, they could easily get some advertising revenue in those spots anyways. They aren't bad at all for a multitude of reasons.

(11-17-2017 11:07 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Why would we ever remove the notches, we can't fill the stands as it stands. Moreover, they have been using the space to advertise for the corporate sponsors.

Of course attendance will drop off because we've had two down seasons in a row. You act like the football team will never win again. Those seats were usually filled over the past few seasons. Also, it seems like the only banner I see hung in the notch visible from my seat are "We Wear Cincinnati" ads, not big corporate sponsors.

(11-17-2017 11:32 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 11:07 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Why would we ever remove the notches, we can't fill the stands as it stands. Moreover, they have been using the space to advertise for the corporate sponsors.

Of course attendance will drop off because we've had two down seasons in a row. You act like the football team will never win again. Those seats were usually filled over the past few seasons. Also, it seems like the only banner I see hung in the notch visible from my seat are "We Wear Cincinnati" ads, not big corporate sponsors.

Was thinking John Morrell put up some ads in the notches as well.

As for attendance, I'm as big of a homer as you'll find. I was still sitting in my seat at Nippert as the final seconds wore off against Temple. I agree we will turn it around again.

(11-17-2017 11:24 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

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

(11-17-2017 10:15 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-17-2017 08:48 AM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  simply put the deal FCC presented to the county is the most city/county friendly deal in all of major sports. Not a single other franchise in major pro sports(if FCC gets to MLS) will have ever financed their own stadium 100% privately.

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 your 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...

(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.

(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:  

(11-17-2017 08:48 AM)Ahhhorsepoo Wrote:  simply put the deal FCC presented to the county is the most city/county friendly deal in all of major sports. Not a single other franchise in major pro sports(if FCC gets to MLS) will have ever financed their own stadium 100% privately.

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

(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.

Yep.

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

(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.

But will you win by refusing to incentivize anything? I'm not sure you see the risks of doing nothing as it leads to desirable opportunities passing this city by.

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.

So I'm not sure why ponying up for a $150 BILLION corporation's satellite office is so much "more intelligent" than ponying up a smaller amount for a billionaire's soccer stadium. I think it's much more about us a city and what we want (along with our ability/willingness to pay for it.)