(02-03-2016 05:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:29 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:52 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Yeah saw that yesterday. I find it interesting because I heard Mike Bohn say a month ago the turf was going to Higher Ground to replace the turf there.

I assume UC must be making $$ on the deal.

Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

The simple answer is that Higher Ground wasn't going to pay $450,000 for the turf.

I brought up that question back in August or September when people were saying the turf could end up at Higher Ground. UC only leases Higher Ground for a limited time during the summer, otherwise it's used by a number of other groups, I'm sure. Which made me wonder if UC was simply going to donate the turf or Higher Ground would pay for it.

We now know that answer.

It's apparent that FC Cincinnati didn't provide for installation of the 2-year old turf elsewhere and UC was left to figure out what to do with it.

Did anyone expect otherwise? FC Cincinnati provides for the new turf, UC gets to sell off the old turf and recoup a significant portion of what they originally paid for it. This is exactly what I expected to happen from the get go.

(02-03-2016 05:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:29 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

The simple answer is that Higher Ground wasn't going to pay $450,000 for the turf.

I brought up that question back in August or September when people were saying the turf could end up at Higher Ground. UC only leases Higher Ground for a limited time during the summer, otherwise it's used by a number of other groups, I'm sure. Which made me wonder if UC was simply going to donate the turf or Higher Ground would pay for it.

We now know that answer.

It's apparent that FC Cincinnati didn't provide for installation of the 2-year old turf elsewhere and UC was left to figure out what to do with it.

Did anyone expect otherwise? FC Cincinnati provides for the new turf, UC gets to sell off the old turf and a significant portion of what they originally paid for it. This is exactly what I expected to happen from the get go.

Yes.

There was speculation that the turf would end up at Higher Ground or at Sheakley, and this was being described as a benefit. I responded that: 1) That scenario was speculation; and, 2) the turf itself is only part of the picture and installation is a significant part of the cost (upwards of 40%, if I remember correctly). I even pointed out that UC only uses Higher Ground for a couple weeks a year, so would it behoove them to provide turf to a facility that is used mostly by others and by UC for only a couple weeks out of the year? I was also told that Sheakley gets a lot of wear and could use the turf.

The benefit of placing turf elsewhere was always framed without the associated cost of installation, meaning, "Yeah, you've got that extra turf, but you're gonna have to pay some good money to put it down elsewhere."

So that UC took the $450,000 (minus whatever transaction costs are involved) is pretty much in line with my line of thinking from the start.

I got the impression that there was some pie-in-the-sky expectations of what UC was getting from minor league soccer. The benefits to UC will be incidental to minor league soccer operations.

(02-03-2016 05:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:29 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:30 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Well, I assume that UC is getting new turf installed at no cost, leaving the "old" turf without a home. The article says they sold the old turf for $450,000 (original price I think they said was $1.1M, but I'm not sure if that includes installation or not - I would think it does). What's involved with that $450,000, I don't know, like who pays for shipping. I assume the purchaser pays the cost of installation which is a fairly large portion of artificial turf cost.

So I guess the most we know UC made off the transaction is $450,000. Better than nothing.

How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

The simple answer is that Higher Ground wasn't going to pay $450,000 for the turf.

I brought up that question back in August or September when people were saying the turf could end up at Higher Ground. UC only leases Higher Ground for a limited time during the summer, otherwise it's used by a number of other groups, I'm sure. Which made me wonder if UC was simply going to donate the turf or Higher Ground would pay for it.

We now know that answer.

It's apparent that FC Cincinnati didn't provide for installation of the 2-year old turf elsewhere and UC was left to figure out what to do with it.

Did anyone expect otherwise? FC Cincinnati provides for the new turf, UC gets to sell off the old turf and recoup a significant portion of what they originally paid for it. This is exactly what I expected to happen from the get go.

Sounds like a great deal to me. I"d have been perfectly fine if FC insisted the proceeds of the old turf go to offset the new one, so this sounds even better if accurate.

(02-03-2016 06:12 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:40 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 05:29 PM)Bearcat Otto Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 03:33 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  How about install it at Higher Ground where the current carpet is more worn than a fleabag motel. That stuff can't be safe.

The simple answer is that Higher Ground wasn't going to pay $450,000 for the turf.

I brought up that question back in August or September when people were saying the turf could end up at Higher Ground. UC only leases Higher Ground for a limited time during the summer, otherwise it's used by a number of other groups, I'm sure. Which made me wonder if UC was simply going to donate the turf or Higher Ground would pay for it.

We now know that answer.

It's apparent that FC Cincinnati didn't provide for installation of the 2-year old turf elsewhere and UC was left to figure out what to do with it.

Did anyone expect otherwise? FC Cincinnati provides for the new turf, UC gets to sell off the old turf and recoup a significant portion of what they originally paid for it. This is exactly what I expected to happen from the get go.

Sounds like a great deal to me. I"d have been perfectly fine if FC insisted the proceeds of the old turf go to offset the new one, so this sounds even better if accurate.

Yeah... im not seeing the problem here. Is it different than I expected? Sure. But at least this way UC is getting some money back on used turf. Like you said, even better than expected.

Unless the shipping costs are 450k, in which case, screw minor league soccer!

I wouldn't have been surprised if it went to Higher Ground, and I bet there is a pricepoint where UC would have taken less to put the turf there, but UC was always going to do what made the most sense for the football program and financially this makes sense..

I thought the one thing that Nippert was supposed to get this offseason was a new sound system.

Turf.

Note to UC: please paint the AAC logos on the field for easy removal in the near future.

(02-03-2016 07:45 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  I thought the one thing that Nippert was supposed to get this offseason was a new sound system.

Hopefully they'll put that $450K towards a new sound system.

(08-11-2015 02:10 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 01:44 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-11-2015 01:26 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  This is hilarious. UC fans will get all up in arms about anything before we even know how it will work.

Not sure why UC football fans (the American type) getting bent out of shape for pulling seats and changing the configuration of the best stadium in college sports for a temporary affair with minor league soccer is hilarious. Even if I were a fanboy of minor league soccer I would think this was idiotic. I don't really care that the Lindner family always gets what it wants on the basis of being in the lucky sperm club. UC has a soccer field. Use that instead of screwing with Nippert.

I've not heard any official word of a loss of seats or a dip in capacity. Nobody from the University has put anything out yet about what this will mean, what it will look like, what changes will be made to do this, how those changes will effect the stadium for football or anything else. People don't know anything right now and they are acting like it's the end of the world.

BUMP

(08-13-2015 01:36 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  I listened to the Berding interview on Mark Amazon's show last night. He came off well. The ownership group seems to have put the time into thinking through this process. Berding heaped a ton of praise on Nippert. He even said people should attend a UC Fball game to check out Nippert. Will FC Cincinnati become a success? Only time will tell.

Personally, I think this is a win for UC. Nippert gains another tenant, which brings extra revenue into the athletic dept, brings more individuals onto campus, and provides an extra opportunity for Clifton businesses to make money. I would have to assume this is another selling point for the University. We have many international students, who probably love soccer. Potential students will see UC for probably the first time. Lastly, FC Cincinnati's ownership group may help out with the cost of upkeep and new improvements into the facility, ie sound system.

BUMP

(08-11-2015 03:25 PM)Eastside_J Wrote:  Well...this sure makes me feel better about not spilling the beans on this, especially the part about removing seats back in the spring!

As Beercat mentioned - might want to take a breather and remember these are practically the only BAD seats in the stadium. How many times have you seen a pretty full house but still no one wants to sit in the first 6 -10 rows. The seats are basically turf-level - your view is partially blocked more often than not.

Given the people backing this team and project - it is VERY LIKELY to happen and very likely to be a success.

Think about the positives -
A great deal of $$$ for the Athletic Program
A huge boost for the Mens and Womens Soccer programs (and likely a massive boost in recruiting capability).

Can't hurt p5 chances to boost both revenue stream AND Soccer visibility.

BUMP

(01-31-2016 12:17 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-31-2016 10:34 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 11:57 PM)subflea Wrote:  Pretty sure it was announced that no seats would be removed for the first season of FC Cincinnati.

So if they can already fit a soccer field in the current configuration why tear up the stadium in the first place? I seem to recall that if this team succeeds, the bylaws of their league required them to eventually have their own stadium anyway. Why potentially ruin the character of Nippert for a short term tenant?

Seems pretty clear that nothing is finalized and UC won't agree to do anything that it doesn't believe will benefit the UC program and the University overall. Pretty much all we've heard is unsubstantiated speculation from people incredibly worried about what could possibly happen. All we really know is that there will be a soccer team playing at Nippert and there will be new turf that is able to be altered for football and soccer.

I firmly believe more people going to campus is good. I firmly believe partnering with this local sports team will have benefits, many unforeseen. I personally believe getting more use out of a stadium we just sunk a lot of money into is a good thing as well. I'm excited to see what happens with this going forward.

BUMP

BTW Sorry for all the bumps, just getting sick of BearcatsUC arguing against fake positions and claiming these are all new explanations of things people thought would benefit UC with this deal.

FC Cincinnati getting press for their success.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/201...ces-soccer

(05-16-2016 06:40 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  FC Cincinnati getting press for their success.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/201...ces-soccer

Pretty cool they could play an EPL team this summer.

I wonder when some people from the MLS offices will stop by.

(05-17-2016 06:40 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  I wonder when some people from the MLS offices will stop by.

They will hitch a ride with the Big 12 people.

Now we have two realignments to wish for.

(05-17-2016 09:01 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 06:40 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  I wonder when some people from the MLS offices will stop by.

They will hitch a ride with the Big 12 people.

Now we have two realignments to wish for.

Don't we call that a travel partner?