(12-20-2012 09:34 AM)OneUChoopsfan Wrote:  Politicians also benefit monetarily, either directly or indirectly from these kinds of unneeded projects.

I love hearing all the outlandish justifications, truth-bending, and false financial data that get thrown around for risky "downtown building" schemes like the Yum Center, PBS, and our trolley.

Other peoples money.

Barnum.

That said. Mike Brown is not a bad businessman or person for negotiating the best possible deal for himself, and refusing to give back anything in the contract. The taxpayers are at fault, and the politicians they elected are at fault.

I agree with the first part. But I disagree with your statement about Mike Brown.

A man who engages in bribery as a way to win a negotiation is a bad person. Brown's hiring of the county's lead negotiator soon after the negotiations were over is pretty good evidence of bribery.

This is not pro sports, where it's only cheating if you get caught. In real life, you're a bad person for doing something bad, even if you're not conviceted.

Bribery, as you call it, is an accepted aspect of business dealing. You must not have had Professor Gray teach you Business Law 101.

May not be morally right, but it will always be there.

(12-20-2012 05:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 09:34 AM)OneUChoopsfan Wrote:  Politicians also benefit monetarily, either directly or indirectly from these kinds of unneeded projects.

I love hearing all the outlandish justifications, truth-bending, and false financial data that get thrown around for risky "downtown building" schemes like the Yum Center, PBS, and our trolley.

Other peoples money.

Barnum.

That said. Mike Brown is not a bad businessman or person for negotiating the best possible deal for himself, and refusing to give back anything in the contract. The taxpayers are at fault, and the politicians they elected are at fault.

I agree with the first part. But I disagree with your statement about Mike Brown.

A man who engages in bribery as a way to win a negotiation is a bad person. Brown's hiring of the county's lead negotiator soon after the negotiations were over is pretty good evidence of bribery.

This is not pro sports, where it's only cheating if you get caught. In real life, you're a bad person for doing something bad, even if you're not conviceted.

(12-20-2012 06:27 PM)beck Wrote:  Bribery, as you call it, is an accepted aspect of business dealing. You must not have had Professor Gray teach you Business Law 101.

May not be morally right, but it will always be there.

I highly doubt there was any agreement, implied or otherwise for Bedinghouse to join the Bengals until after he ended up losing the election. In all likelihood, he fought for the stadium deal suspecting it would be an asset to his political career.

I think the Bengals later saw a guy with some political skills whose political career may have been ended (although these days who knows) for going to bat for a stadium to keep the Bengals and decided to offer him a job.

I know this is OT, but have there actually been rumors about the NBA in Louisville? I would think both UL and UK would hate that.

(12-20-2012 06:27 PM)beck Wrote:  Bribery, as you call it, is an accepted aspect of business dealing. You must not have had Professor Gray teach you Business Law 101.

May not be morally right, but it will always be there.

I have no idea where you are going with this, but if the Bengals bribed Bettinghous then both Bettinghaus and Mike Brown should be put in prison. Mike Brown must be a miserable person because anyone who was halfway decent (or even someone was cared just a little bit about his image) would either 1. help the county with the lease or 2. work with UC to get games at the stadium. Since Mike has done neither, we must assume he is a miserable, greedy man.

(12-20-2012 10:24 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 06:27 PM)beck Wrote:  Bribery, as you call it, is an accepted aspect of business dealing. You must not have had Professor Gray teach you Business Law 101.

May not be morally right, but it will always be there.

I have no idea where you are going with this, but if the Bengals bribed Bettinghous then both Bettinghaus and Mike Brown should be put in prison. Mike Brown must be a miserable person because anyone who was halfway decent (or even someone was cared just a little bit about his image) would either 1. help the county with the lease or 2. work with UC to get games at the stadium. Since Mike has done neither, we must assume he is a miserable, greedy man.

UC has played several games at PBS over the years including 2 pretty recent ones. How has he specifically not worked with UC to get games in the stadium? In particular which games are we talking about and what were his specific non-negotiable demands?

(12-20-2012 11:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  UC has played several games at PBS over the years including 2 pretty recent ones. How has he specifically not worked with UC to get games in the stadium? In particular which games are we talking about and what were his specific non-negotiable demands?

C'mon Hawk. You know he was talking about working with them to make money. Whit specifically said that both games at PBS last year (48k and 42k) LOST money.

(12-20-2012 11:30 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 11:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  UC has played several games at PBS over the years including 2 pretty recent ones. How has he specifically not worked with UC to get games in the stadium? In particular which games are we talking about and what were his specific non-negotiable demands?

C'mon Hawk. You know he was talking about working with them to make money. Whit specifically said that both games at PBS last year (48k and 42k) LOST money.

That's not inherently Mike Brown's fault nor does it prove he didn't work with UC. In fact, he clearly he worked with UC to get the deal done or the games never would have happened. I'm interested in facts.

Clearly Mike Brown has the power to make whatever deals he wants. Mike Thomas had the power to accept or reject that deal and he obviously accepted. He must have forecasted better attendance numbers for the UL and WVU games, thus anticipating a profit is the only thing I can think of. On the other hand, it seems given Whit's reasons for investing in Nippert vs. playing at PBS, he is not interested in taking the deal offered by Brown to play at PBS (at least with the terms historically given to UC).

(12-20-2012 11:49 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  Clearly Mike Brown has the power to make whatever deals he wants.

Actually there might be things that the county has a say on as well since I've heard they get part of the proceeds. But again that goes back to my plea for actual facts rather than accusations.

Quote: Mike Thomas had the power to accept or reject that deal and he obviously accepted. He must have forecasted better attendance numbers for the UL and WVU games, thus anticipating a profit is the only thing I can think of.

Probably, although I wouldn't be shocked if he neglected to take all revenues and expenses into account when making the decision (e.g. advertising issues).

Quote:On the other hand, it seems given Whit's reasons for investing in Nippert vs. playing at PBS, he is not interested in taking the deal offered by Brown to play at PBS (at least with the terms historically given to UC).

At a high level that's basically true. But that's a long way from proving anyone is in the wrong or being unfair for those who are so inclined.

We can go back to this thread from a couple years ago discussing the deal between UC and the Bengals for the game against Oklahoma. I'm not sure if we had the same deal for the UL/WVU games but this article indicates as long we had 45,000 or more for Oklahoma we'd make $240k more than we'd make at Nippert. For WVU we had over $45k ($48k) and for UL we had $41k. Must not have been the same deal if we lost in the 6 figures for those two games?

http://rice.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=443025

(12-20-2012 05:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 09:34 AM)OneUChoopsfan Wrote:  Politicians also benefit monetarily, either directly or indirectly from these kinds of unneeded projects.

I love hearing all the outlandish justifications, truth-bending, and false financial data that get thrown around for risky "downtown building" schemes like the Yum Center, PBS, and our trolley.

Other peoples money.

Barnum.

That said. Mike Brown is not a bad businessman or person for negotiating the best possible deal for himself, and refusing to give back anything in the contract. The taxpayers are at fault, and the politicians they elected are at fault.

I agree with the first part. But I disagree with your statement about Mike Brown.

A man who engages in bribery as a way to win a negotiation is a bad person. Brown's hiring of the county's lead negotiator soon after the negotiations were over is pretty good evidence of bribery.

This is not pro sports, where it's only cheating if you get caught. In real life, you're a bad person for doing something bad, even if you're not conviceted.

Sorry but this is the way the world works. Not that I condone it but this kind of stuff happens everyday. Why do you think the street car is continually being jammed down our throats? You think the enquirer is on the payroll for the group pushing it???

As for Mike Brown I dont like the guy but he is running a business. He is cheap but he is also the owner. I really wonder if anyone that complains about mike would run his team differently if it was your money on the line. If your upset with the deal he got vote the politicians out or go run for office.

A better description of Mike Brown is that he is not reputable.
Paul Brown's underhanded inheritance deal and
Mike Brown having politicians in his pocket, these are not
reputable business people.. They do not deal in good faith....

A better description of Mike Brown is that he is not reputable.
Paul Brown's underhanded inheritance deal and
Mike Brown having politicians in his pocket, these are not
reputable business people.. They do not deal in good faith....

(12-20-2012 11:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  UC has played several games at PBS over the years including 2 pretty recent ones. How has he specifically not worked with UC to get games in the stadium? In particular which games are we talking about and what were his specific non-negotiable demands?

Brown is charging 4-5x what other NFL teams charge local colleges (I believe Steelers-Pitt and Bucs-USF are the comparables). I know a couple of large boosters who said Brown flatly turned down an offer for them to pay for a bubble that both UC and the Bengals would use (I think down at PBS) so long as Brown would simply charge UC a similar rate as Pittsburgh and Tampa.

Somehow I've got a feeling that anyone who plays "Hang On Sloopy" between the 3rd and 4th quarters of every game is not going to do UC any favors. Screw MB. College football is meant to be played on campus anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the fans of every school that plays in an NFL stadium has some remorse over it and would prefer to have their own facility.

(12-21-2012 09:32 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  Somehow I've got a feeling that anyone who plays "Hang On Sloopy" between the 3rd and 4th quarters of every game is not going to do UC any favors. Screw MB. College football is meant to be played on campus anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the fans of every school that plays in an NFL stadium has some remorse over it and would prefer to have their own facility.

Absolutely. Not only does it not make financial sense, it's a sterile environment that can't touch the atmosphere on campus.

I looked up the amount team pay in other venues:

Pitt- no charge (also shares indoor practice facility)
USF- $171,000 a game
Temple- paid $15M towards the initial stadium project for untethered access to the stadium for 15 years.
San Diego State- $525,000 a year

I am not entirely clear on how much these schools keep in turns of concessions and parking.

(12-21-2012 09:23 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 11:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  UC has played several games at PBS over the years including 2 pretty recent ones. How has he specifically not worked with UC to get games in the stadium? In particular which games are we talking about and what were his specific non-negotiable demands?

Brown is charging 4-5x what other NFL teams charge local colleges (I believe Steelers-Pitt and Bucs-USF are the comparables).

Where is your source for this (beyond what you "believe")????? It's been brought up many times on this forum that the Steelers/Pitt was built as a joint tenant scenario and is not legally nor legislatively comparable. With regard to USF, per the link to the article around the OK game:

Quote:Fellow Big East Conference member South Florida, which plays its home games at Raymond James Stadium, the home of the NFL Buccaneers, pays approximately $200,000 per game for use of the lower bowl, to have logos painted, and to open the upper east portion of the stadium.

The Bucs receive the first $2 million of net revenue from all non-Bucs events at the stadium during the course of a year, with the club and the Tampa Sports Authority splitting anything beyond that on a 50-50 basis.

Compared to:

Quote:If the University of Cincinnati attracts a crowd of 45,000 for its Sept. 25 football game against Oklahoma at Paul Brown Stadium, the school will pay approximately $133,750 to use the Hamilton County-owned facility.

Half of that money will go to the NFL Bengals, the stadium's primary tenants, the other half to the county.

Based upon the article and the actual attendance of over 58K, I'd update that figure to more like $186K. Granted this is as of a few years ago and undoubtedly isn't a perfect apples to apples comparison but it sounds like UC may have gotten a better deal for the OK game than USF gets (for just the lower bowl and upper east section?) - at least for the base rate. (And unlike the Bucs, the Bengals have to split the revenue). It's hard to imagine the numbers would turn into 4X to 5X the USF rate if we had all the details. And if the rent formula was the same, it sounds like UC would have paid even less for the 2 more recent games (because of the lower attendance).

(12-21-2012 03:38 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(12-21-2012 09:23 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(12-20-2012 11:20 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  UC has played several games at PBS over the years including 2 pretty recent ones. How has he specifically not worked with UC to get games in the stadium? In particular which games are we talking about and what were his specific non-negotiable demands?

Brown is charging 4-5x what other NFL teams charge local colleges (I believe Steelers-Pitt and Bucs-USF are the comparables).

Where is your source for this????? It's been brought up many times on this forum that the Steelers/Pitt was built as a joint tenant scenario and iis not comparable. With regard to USF, per the link to the article around the OK game:

Quote:Fellow Big East Conference member South Florida, which plays its home games at Raymond James Stadium, the home of the NFL Buccaneers, pays approximately $200,000 per game for use of the lower bowl, to have logos painted, and to open the upper east portion of the stadium.

The Bucs receive the first $2 million of net revenue from all non-Bucs events at the stadium during the course of a year, with the club and the Tampa Sports Authority splitting anything beyond that on a 50-50 basis.

Compared to:

Quote:If the University of Cincinnati attracts a crowd of 45,000 for its Sept. 25 football game against Oklahoma at Paul Brown Stadium, the school will pay approximately $133,750 to use the Hamilton County-owned facility.

Half of that money will go to the NFL Bengals, the stadium's primary tenants, the other half to the county.

Granted this is as of a few years ago and undoubtedly isn't a perfect apples to apples comparison but it sounds like UC got a better deal for the OK game than USF gets - at least for the base rate. (And unlike the Bucs, the Bengals have to split the revenue). It's hard to imagine the numbers would turn into 4X to 5X the USF rate if we had all the details. And if the rent formula was the same, it sounds like UC would have paid even less for the 2 more recent games (because of the lower attendance).

Do you know the figures for split of concessions, parking, club seat revenue, merchandise, and corporate sponsorship revenue and both Raymond James and Paul Brown? I wonder what the difference would be there and if that's driving the cost for UC (if it is at all)?