(01-02-2013 01:22 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  it's more than I thought but in the grand scheme of things I was right-it is a set amount.

For an NFL franchise $2500 or $5000 is peanuts.

Mike Brown grinning ear to ear that he turned down our offer to become a part owner and share in the bubble's financing.

At those rents he can rent it every season for 100 years and come out miles ahead.

We should absolutely refuse to give them access at any price unless they negotiate PBS terms with us. If sincerely hope we aren't doing this hoping for any kind of "goodwill" with Mike Brown. That ahole doesn't understand the concept.

If the Bengals do win this weekend, they may find it a little more inconvenient to use the bubble when school starts again on monday and it goes back into heavy use by the students. I think/hope our own gets 1st priority.

(01-03-2013 10:02 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  Price is SOLELY a function of supply and demand. Cost has nothing to do with price.

Aah, economics...

(01-03-2013 10:18 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  If the Bengals do win this weekend, they may find it a little more inconvenient to use the bubble when school starts again on monday and it goes back into heavy use by the students. I think/hope our own gets 1st priority.

That is a good possibility. Lacrosse and Baseball will be using it starting this month.

(01-03-2013 03:03 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 03:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 03:23 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 02:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 01:27 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  My question now is does that cover the operating costs of the facility or does UC make a little extra on the side from it?

This is a good question for an introductory business course. The answer is that it depends on how you do the accounting.

If you're asking if it accounts for the whole cost of a few hours of using the facility, including fans, heating, depreciation, set-up/take-down in the fall/spring, then the answer is probably no. It can't possibly cover all that. (if the bubble itself cost $2 million, and if it has a 20 year lifespan, the depreciation cost alone is $273 for every hour of the day)

$2M / (20 years s/l w/ no resid.) = $100K/year
$100K / 365 days = $274 per day
$274 / 24 hours = $11.42 per hour


Am I missing something?

Bubble is only up for a few months, not 24/7-365 days of the year.

I'm not a CPA, but that doesn't stop the depreciation from taking place. Now there are probably multiple acceptable methods to allocate the depreciation. But once UC knows it is charging enough to cover its variable costs, the actual pricing probably becomes more of a supply/demand and market issue. The point is the number cited by CB seems way too high (I suspect he got his days/hours confused but that's just a guess) and I was hoping for an explanation of numbers.

To cinbin's question, I expect it would cover all the operating costs and probably all (or at least most) of the capital costs (e.g. depreciation) with hopefully at least a little profit on top of that.

Whoops, my bad on the math.

Bearhawkeye, I think the depreciation would be evenly spread out by quarter or month (however often the business updates their income statements). Of course, as a nonprofit, the definition of depreciation doesn't really matter too much from a bottom line perspective because they don't pay income taxes.

So if I were doing financial accounting, I'd only count the months that the bubble is up, and I'd only count the hours of the day that can be rented out (18 hrs a day maybe?). If it's up for four months, that's $46 an hour. And keep in mind that I'm completely guessing that the bubble itself cost $2 million.

I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

My sentiments exactly. The Bengals are basically paying UC to use a facility that would have otherwise gone pretty much unused during this time and would have otherwise been paid for by UC itself. It's only a couple-thousand dollars per day but that's money that can be used elsewhere, like eating away at the Varsity Village debt. Absolutely nothing negative about letting the Bengals practice in the bubble.

Financial gents -- UC does not use accrual accounting -- they use fund accounting. Depreciation is a whole lot different under fund accounting.

(01-02-2013 01:54 PM)indycat Wrote:  Given the low rent, Mike Brown and his organization could score some much needed PR by making a contribution to UCATS in appreciation for the facility usage. Even a relatively small gift of $5,000-$10,000 would be trumpeted through the local media and viewed positively in the community. But the Bengals organization is so clueless in this regard UC shouldn't expect a penny more than the stated rental rate.

Well, we still have a lot of morons supporting this team so Mike Brown isn't the clueless one.

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

UC should not reschedule their own team's practices in order to accommodate the Bengals. The Bengals do no favors for UC and thus deserve none in return.

The Bengals should pay the going rate but should only have access to the time slots available when UC isn't using the facility. If Mike and Katie balk at not having access when they want it and choose to go to Mason so be it. It's not like UC is making a mint off of renting it to the Browngals.

It's UC's facility first and for UC's use primarily. If the Browngals wanted a say in when they could use it they should've ponied up for it's construction.

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

If that's the case, since the uiversity has pretty much decided we're gonna play all our games at Nippert and not at PBS, I believe they should politely inform the Bengals that they don't get to call the shots on when they can use the Bubble. Present them with the times which are available. If they don't like it, they can lump it and bus their a$$es up to Mason.

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

Mike Brown is not inconveniencing others in this case, it is UC that is inconveniencing their own.

(01-03-2013 12:44 PM)browerjs Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

Mike Brown is not inconveniencing others in this case, it is UC that is inconveniencing their own.

I'd give Mike and Katie a schedule of available practice times and tell them take it or leave it. The rent they are paying isn't worth the inconvenience of UC teams and students. Or charge a premium rate if UC has to move their own practices to accommodate.

Mike and Katie do UC no favors and thus deserve none in return.

(01-03-2013 12:43 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

If that's the case, since the uiversity has pretty much decided we're gonna play all our games at Nippert and not at PBS, I believe they should politely inform the Bengals that they don't get to call the shots on when they can use the Bubble. Present them with the times which are available. If they don't like it, they can lump it and bus their a$$es up to Mason.

If true I think financials play a factor. If another organization willing to front the costs of the facility for a few hours then UC will make room for them because of the financial situation of the athletic department.

(01-03-2013 12:52 PM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 12:43 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

If that's the case, since the uiversity has pretty much decided we're gonna play all our games at Nippert and not at PBS, I believe they should politely inform the Bengals that they don't get to call the shots on when they can use the Bubble. Present them with the times which are available. If they don't like it, they can lump it and bus their a$$es up to Mason.

If true I think financials play a factor. If another organization willing to front the costs of the facility for a few hours then UC will make room for them because of the financial situation of the athletic department.

I'm sure UC's financial situation is the major factor but the rent the Bengals are paying is a drop in the bucket and hardly worth rescheduling and bending over backwards especially for an organization like the Bengals who don't reciprocate. If the Bengals need certain time slots, then they should pay a premium rate if UC has to move their own practices to accommodate. This city needs to stop kissing Mike Brown's backside.

(01-03-2013 12:48 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 12:44 PM)browerjs Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 12:11 PM)ALuck Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 11:35 AM)browerjs Wrote:  I really don't understand all the negative feelings towards the price that UC charges the Bengals to use the bubble. Didn't they just use the sports complex up in Mason before the bubble was built? I'm sure that they could still go to Mason if UC "overpriced" the cost of the bubble rental, and then UC gets nothing. Not to mention the Bengals or Bengals fans could spin negative publicity about UC overcharging for the use of renting the facilities.

In the past, the Bengals have requested specific time periods when the facility is already scheduled for UC athletic teams. UC coaches have been asked to reschedule which creates logistic nightmares for their programs due to players classes and other commitments.

Also, this only increases the perception of the Bengals being so damn cheap. They are one of the few NFL teams to not have their own indoor facility, and they have more than enough financial strength to construct their own indoor facility. Mike Brown does not care one iota for UC, he is only looking for a continued way to maximize his dollars while continually inconveniencing others.

Mike Brown is not inconveniencing others in this case, it is UC that is inconveniencing their own.

I'd give Mike and Katie a schedule of available practice times and tell them take it or leave it. The rent they are paying isn't worth the inconvenience of UC teams and students. Or charge a premium rate if UC has to move their own practices to accommodate.

Mike and Katie do UC no favors and thus deserve none in return.

I guess what I'm getting at is that UC feels that the inconvenience is worth it, and thus they are making the decision that they will change the schedule so the Bengals don't take their business elsewhere.

I get it that people are upset that UC gets a raw deal to use PBS, but the bottom line is that if UC wants to play at a larger venue they don't really have any other options. The Bengals have other options when it comes to an indoor practice facility so they have quite a bit more negotiating power.

Basic supply and demand principals.

(01-03-2013 10:23 AM)cinbinsportsfan Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 10:02 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  Price is SOLELY a function of supply and demand. Cost has nothing to do with price.

Aah, economics...

Ahem, 2 Things I'll try to keep simple as this veers off-topic:
1. UC didn't build the bubble as a rental investment. As I indicated, the Decision on whether to sell (or in this case rent) DOES depend upon costs. If the demand for your product dictates a (market) price below your variable costs then you (UC) wouldn't bother renting your facility economically speaking.
2. Supply and demand assumes a competitive market. It's far from clear that the market for renting bubble facilities in Clifton constitues a competitive market.

I'll leave further rersearch to you, but here's one source lest you think I'm making this up:

Quote:Supply and demand analysis assumes competitive markets. For a supply curve to exist, there must be a large number of sellers in the market; and for a demand curve to exist, there must be many buyers. In both cases there must be enough so that no one believes that what he does will influence price. In terms that were first introduced into economics in the 1950s and that have become quite popular, everyone must be a price taker and no one can be a price searcher. If there is only one seller, that seller can search along the demand curve to find the most profitable price.1 A price taker cannot influence the price, but must take or leave it. The ordinary consumer knows the role of price taker well. When he goes to the store, he can buy one or twenty gallons of milk with no effect on price. The assumption that both buyers and sellers are price takers is a crucial assumption, and often it is not true with regard to sellers. If it is not true with regard to sellers, a supply curve will not exist because the amount a seller will want to sell will depend not on price but on marginal revenue.

Financials be damned. The rent they are paying is not that much money.

By allowing them to dictate the schedule, the Brown family now holds the University of Cincinnati hostage in addition to the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, getting what they want and everyone accommodating.

The Browns could've helped build the practice bubble and could've had some say in scheduling. They opted to not because they likely figured they could rent it anyway and that was cheaper for them. Give them the table scraps on scheduling or go ahead and let them drive to Mason.

(01-03-2013 11:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 03:03 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 03:29 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 03:23 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 02:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is a good question for an introductory business course. The answer is that it depends on how you do the accounting.

If you're asking if it accounts for the whole cost of a few hours of using the facility, including fans, heating, depreciation, set-up/take-down in the fall/spring, then the answer is probably no. It can't possibly cover all that. (if the bubble itself cost $2 million, and if it has a 20 year lifespan, the depreciation cost alone is $273 for every hour of the day)

$2M / (20 years s/l w/ no resid.) = $100K/year
$100K / 365 days = $274 per day
$274 / 24 hours = $11.42 per hour


Am I missing something?

Bubble is only up for a few months, not 24/7-365 days of the year.

I'm not a CPA, but that doesn't stop the depreciation from taking place. Now there are probably multiple acceptable methods to allocate the depreciation. But once UC knows it is charging enough to cover its variable costs, the actual pricing probably becomes more of a supply/demand and market issue. The point is the number cited by CB seems way too high (I suspect he got his days/hours confused but that's just a guess) and I was hoping for an explanation of numbers.

To cinbin's question, I expect it would cover all the operating costs and probably all (or at least most) of the capital costs (e.g. depreciation) with hopefully at least a little profit on top of that.

Whoops, my bad on the math.

Bearhawkeye, I think the depreciation would be evenly spread out by quarter or month (however often the business updates their income statements). Of course, as a nonprofit, the definition of depreciation doesn't really matter too much from a bottom line perspective because they don't pay income taxes.

So if I were doing financial accounting, I'd only count the months that the bubble is up, and I'd only count the hours of the day that can be rented out (18 hrs a day maybe?). If it's up for four months, that's $46 an hour. And keep in mind that I'm completely guessing that the bubble itself cost $2 million.

Just thought the math was off - I'm with you now. Thanks for the response.