Only 9 More Years of Disappointment?

[HoosierCat]

The Cincy Business Courier muses on the possibility the Bengals may leave after the stadium lease expires.

Quote

Bye-bye Bengals?

It might be time for Cincinnatians to start thinking about life after the NFL.

On Monday, the usually zip-lipped Mike Brown gave a fascinating interview to the Enquirer out at the NFL owners meeting in Phoenix. Brown ostensibly talked about his "yes" vote at the NFL owners meeting on Monday to allow the Oakland Raiders to decamp to Las Vegas. (Side note: Whoever is cutting Raiders owner Mark Davis' hair might be legally blind.)

But Brown clearly had more on his mind than Oakland or Las Vegas or the Raiders. For one thing, his own stadium lease, which expires in – I know this is hard to believe – nine years. From the Enquirer:

“If we hadn’t been able to get (the Paul Brown Stadium deal) done we would have had to think about doing something different, too. So, I understand it when these teams are up against it. This is one that tried in their hometown and couldn’t get it put together so they felt they had no other option but to move.”

Of his current stadium deal with Hamilton County, Brown said, "today it looks like a pretty good bargain.”

Wow. Just ... wow.

For whom, Mike? Not for taxpayers it doesn't. Not by a long shot. Hamilton County taxpayers already have spent about $1 billion on a place that gets used about 10 times a year. The PBS deal was famously dubbed by the Wall Street Journal in 2011 as the "one of the worst ever struck" for taxpayers.

There is zero, zilch chance that the Bengals will get significant public money to go through this whole thing again.

In 2026, Paul Brown Stadium will be 26 years old. At that point it likely will be one of the 10 oldest stadiums in the NFL. (It sits at No. 14 right now.) What happens when the lease expires?

Here's what happens unless the current economics of pro football change dramatically: The Bengals will find another city willing to foot the bill – maybe even to somewhere in Bay Area around Oakland, which is teeming with tech millionaires and billionaires who no doubt would love to grab an NFL franchise

This seems pretty likely to me. The only real question is, what city would pay for the Bengals? Maybe things change over the next 9 ye...bwhahahahahahahahahahaha...cough...cough...hahahah, sorry, I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face. I can't see any politician making a successful case that their city/region/state needs to pay hundreds of millions of taxpayer $$$ for this sad-sack franchise.

[COB]

Those tech billionaires would love to build a stadium for an NFL team.  An NFL team that they OWN.  

The Brown family will be looking for someone to give them a stadium, while they retain ownership of the team.  Those taxpayer funded stadium deals are pretty rare these days.  Also, the NFL is losing some of its cachet.  

By the time the brain injury lawsuits are over, the tv ratings have declined, and whatever other unforeseeable difficulties arise, it may be darn near impossible to sucker someone into the type of deal the Brown family will be seeking.

The closest parallel I can come up with is hosting an olympics.  Cities are lining up to say no to the Olympics.  

A second lease on PBS might look like a pretty great deal in 9 years.

[cincyhokie]

In 2026, I will be 50 years old.  My kids will be 11 and 14.  

And at this pace...I. won't. give. a. shit.

Let them leave, there's more to life than watching and following a football team.  

The Bengals have not done jack shit in the last 25 years under MB to prove they are worth keeping.

[AMPHAR]

There's a very good chance the Bengals or another sports franchise from a different league will receive public money to attract people to the Riverfront.

As planned the stadiums were the first step of rebirth of the riverfront.   There has been major public and private investment made on the riverfront since both those stadiums have been built.    An elected official that is seen as being anti bringing people to the riverfront will not stand a chance to survive a political career.

For example the Street Car which will probably fail on it's own but it's heavily dependent of needing people wanting to go from the Riverfront to Uptown and vice versa.    Smale Riverfront park will need continued budget for maintenance and operations.   The Banks is built on parking garages and none of that is even close to being paid off.   Condos must be bought/rented.   Bars must be filled.   The remaining retail spots will need year round traffic for success.

If the Bengals leave they'll be chasing some other attraction to fill PBS. 

My guess is there will be some extension of the lease with a capital plan to update PBS in the next decade.

 

In the mid 90s.  The Bengals sucked and the city was too dependent on major league teams and that's when there was nothing on the Riverfront.  Now there's a ton and it was built via debt.     You are going to need tenants to pay rent and tenants are going to need customers.  

 

 

 

 

[HoosierCat]

8 minutes ago, AMPHAR said:

There's a very good chance the Bengals or another sports franchise from a different league will receive public money to attract people to the Riverfront.

As planned the stadiums were the first step of rebirth of the riverfront.   There has been major public and private investment made on the riverfront since both those stadiums have been built.    An elected official that is seen as being anti bringing people to the riverfront will not stand a chance to survive a political career.

For example the Street Car which will probably fail on it's own but it's heavily dependent of needing people wanting to go from the Riverfront to Uptown and vice versa.    Smale Riverfront park will need continued budget for maintenance and operations.   The Banks is built on parking garages and none of that is even close to being paid off.   Condos must be bought/rented.   Bars must be filled.   The remaining retail spots will need year round traffic for success.

If the Bengals leave they'll be chasing some other attraction to fill PBS. 

My guess is there will be some extension of the lease with a capital plan to update PBS in the next decade.

It could happen, but I would put my bet on the "other attraction." Bengals are only good for 10 Sundays a year counting preseason. If your rationale for spending a boatload of public money is driving traffic to the riverfront, I'd want something that would attract people the other 355 days a year, too (or at least some significant fraction thereof). And yes, I know there are other events that happen at the stadium like concerts, but the Bengals are notorious PITAs about alternative uses, and if the city wants a concert facility, that can almost certainly be done cheaper.

[AMPHAR]

2 minutes ago, HoosierCat said:

It could happen, but I would put my bet on the "other attraction." Bengals are only good for 10 Sundays a year counting preseason. If your rationale for spending a boatload of public money is driving traffic to the riverfront, I'd want something that would attract people the other 355 days a year, too (or at least some significant fraction thereof). And yes, I know there are other events that happen at the stadium like concerts, but the Bengals are notorious PITAs about alternative uses, and if the city wants a concert facility, that can almost certainly be done cheaper.

Bengals are more than 10 days.   They draw starting late July.  

     

 

[ArmyBengal]

I asked not long ago when the lease was up because I was hoping it was sooner rather than later. Why you ask ?? (No you didn't) Because much like Hokie, I don't give a shit about this team staying in Cincinnati. I am seriously hoping they leave.

If things remain the same for the NFL, and I'm betting they will, some city will pay to lure them away. The sport is too popular.

[AMPHAR]

Renovation of Riverfront was never an option because the Reds and Bengals couldn't get along.   The Bengals were close to leaving in 1993, I think.  They came to agreement to revamp the yellow sections seats into a luxury box/stadium club.   That was blocked by the Reds and ultimately was the first step pushing the County into the plan that produced two stadiums.

Now that they are separate.  I'm sure there's something that could be dreamt  up that would require tearing down PBS and building a new stadium.   But I'm guessing there's enough flexibility within the structure of PBS to make a lease extension with a capital improvement plan easily done without a public vote.

1. The club section of PBS can already be expanded by a bunch of seats if demand would arise. 

2. The endzones are open and that's an easy area to improve upon with whatever they desire. 

 

I'm guessing the lease of Bengals/PBS gets extended at some point with a capital investment plan put together.  

[kingwilly]

PBS is nowhere near the end of its useful life, despite its relative age. AMPHAR mentions the expansion options but then there's more seats that might not sell. 

The Bengals draw impactful economic numbers on 10 days a year. There are other events at the building but nothing that touches what the Bengals pull. 

If UC used the facility, that could be something but that's a reach and not a replacement option. 

Given the many changes across the sport, I can't see the Bengals having a viable option to leave (reason to go, place to take them) in the near or mid-term. I expect they'll shakedown the city for a few things, and re-up the lease. 

[ArmyBengal]

They can shake down all they want.  If there is talk of public money going to the Brown family, they will be laughed out of town.
No one will be voting for that again.  Not for them.

[kingwilly]

40 minutes ago, ArmyBengal said:

They can shake down all they want.  If there is talk of public money going to the Brown family, they will be laughed out of town.
No one will be voting for that again.  Not for them.

I should have been more clear. 

They'll TRY to shake down the county for a few things. 

I wouldn't vote to give them one red cent. 

[GapControl]

Just a wild hunch.... there's going to be stadiums which are still good enough for pro football sitting empty without NFL teams soon (5-10 years) and another group of owners ready to pay people to play football in them.  It'll be like the old ABA vs NBA where you root and follow the league in your town.  Think it's impossible?  Check up on what Mike Shanahan has done in California already.  He's got a league ready to start for players who don't want to go to college and rather play for money.  It's going to happen just like it's happened in Europe with soccer.  It's a good thing, not a bad.   Also, I work with British and German guys who follow the NFL and there is real support for pro level American football in Europe.  That league is coming as part of the NFL or on its own.  

 

[GapControl]

If NFL owners are truly the only ones profiting from all those tax payer stadiums which have been built, there will never be a public ally funded one again unless its an agreement where local business and government profit as well.

[AMPHAR]

Governments profit greatly.    The tax payer is often lied to.    In the case of Cincinnati there was an audit done by the County Auditor (so he wasn't independent from the County) that basically pointed out they funneled 200 million dollars (at the time, that number was predicted to grow) of the stadium funding into other projects.

So basically their own auditor ratted them out and probably a truly independent audit probably finds a number much higher.  

Governments aren't getting involved in these project because they love NFL football.   They get involved in them because it produces large piles of cash that increases their budgets.  

The sales tax that was increased for the Stadiums, even if the debt was paid the tax would not be relieved.  That money just goes into another budget.

Now these projects may be great.   For instances Cincinnati Public Schools received a portion of that 200 mil the auditor found.   But these projects aren't being hashed out with the public or by vote. 

In all of these stadium projects the Government is taking in the cash and expending the money, accounting for it and even auditing it.  They aren't profiting?   They just enter these deals because THEY love the NFL?  Get real.

   

 

 

[cincyhokie]

22 minutes ago, AMPHAR said:

Governments profit greatly.    The tax payer is often lied to.    In the case of Cincinnati there was an audit done by the County Auditor (so he wasn't independent from the County) that basically pointed out they funneled 200 million dollars (at the time, that number was predicted to grow) of the stadium funding into other projects.

Hey!  It's just like Social Security!  

[GapControl]

If they really are profiting then why didn't Oakland, St Louis , etc pony up the cash ?   Were they simply outbid by other cities ?

[HoosierCat]

Governments don't profit from stadium deals, but there are plenty of people connected to them that will. I'm not talking illegally, though of course that can happen with stuff like kickbacks, but there is money to borrow (the banks say hi), steel to erecting and concrete to pour (the building trades say hi), construction workers to feed (the taco truck says hi) etc., and at the end the politicians get to stand in front of a big cool structure and get their picture taken while cutting a ribbon. In short there are lots of people and business who have an interest in seeing hundreds of millions of dollars in public cash get spent.

And that, spending lots of taxpayer money, isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are lots of public works that are very worthy of investment. The question is, is a new stadium for the Bengals one of them? Teams like to tout studies about the economic impact of stadiums but most of those have turned out to be bullhooey. I can think of lots of better things I'd like to see my city spend money on.

If the Bengals reach a new deal with the city it will IMO be driven by the public and politicians' fears of angry Bengals fans voting them out. Not sure there are too many Bengals fans that qualify right now...

[GapControl]

I see it like Hoosier does.  There is money being made. In Vegas, 750 mill is what the tax will provide for the stadium.  So is it worth the taxing of the public when that tax could easily have addressed countless needs for a better society?  I guess it's worth it if there's a decent profit but where is the evidence it's profitable?  And let's say, yeah basically cities get 20 percent return on the investment hypothetically.  Why not let whatever Ownership build their own stadium with private money, forget about the cities 20% profit and instead institute a tax for the people who live there to have their lives improved with 750 mill ?  

[BengalszoneBilly]

1 hour ago, GapControl said:

I see it like Hoosier does.  There is money being made. In Vegas, 750 mill is what the tax will provide for the stadium.  So is it worth the taxing of the public when that tax could easily have addressed countless needs for a better society?  I guess it's worth it if there's a decent profit but where is the evidence it's profitable?  And let's say, yeah basically cities get 20 percent return on the investment hypothetically.  Why not let whatever Ownership build their own stadium with private money, forget about the cities 20% profit and instead institute a tax for the people who live there to have their lives improved with 750 mill ?  

I lived in Las Vegas. There are no taxes. State or otherwise. I doubt that has changed.

[Kazkal]

On 3/28/2017 at 9:56 AM, HoosierCat said:

The Cincy Business Courier muses on the possibility the Bengals may leave after the stadium lease expires.

This seems pretty likely to me. The only real question is, what city would pay for the Bengals? Maybe things change over the next 9 ye...bwhahahahahahahahahahaha...cough...cough...hahahah, sorry, I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face. I can't see any politician making a successful case that their city/region/state needs to pay hundreds of millions of taxpayer $$$ for this sad-sack franchise.

Maybe if they started winning playoff games and stop worrying about the profit the tax payers would try and work with the team...But really I see them moving 9 years he would do it sooner if he could 

[GapControl]

9 hours ago, BengalszoneBilly said:

I lived in Las Vegas. There are no taxes. State or otherwise. I doubt that has changed.

So that 750 m. Number I keep hearing is all private funds?  If so, that's a totally different ballgame.

[GapControl]

21 hours ago, AMPHAR said:

Governments profit greatly.    The tax payer is often lied to.    In the case of Cincinnati there was an audit done by the County Auditor (so he wasn't independent from the County) that basically pointed out they funneled 200 million dollars (at the time, that number was predicted to grow) of the stadium funding into other projects.

So basically their own auditor ratted them out and probably a truly independent audit probably finds a number much higher.  

Governments aren't getting involved in these project because they love NFL football.   They get involved in them because it produces large piles of cash that increases their budgets.  

The sales tax that was increased for the Stadiums, even if the debt was paid the tax would not be relieved.  That money just goes into another budget.

Now these projects may be great.   For instances Cincinnati Public Schools received a portion of that 200 mil the auditor found.   But these projects aren't being hashed out with the public or by vote. 

In all of these stadium projects the Government is taking in the cash and expending the money, accounting for it and even auditing it.  They aren't profiting?   They just enter these deals because THEY love the NFL?  Get real.

   

 

 

But who is profiting?  The citizens paying the sales tax or the politicians and business people who struck the deal?  One quote said about 57 mill went to public schools.  Where is the other 1 billion already paid from the sales tax?

[GapControl]

Check out this article

http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/county-has-spent-920m-in-deal-to-build-stadium-keep-nfl-team-in-town-since-2000?sharedToken=f5fd4400-747b-4297-ac66-016fc1bb7ef4

You have to give your email addy but it's free

[AMPHAR]

  

15 hours ago, GapControl said:

If they really are profiting then why didn't Oakland, St Louis , etc pony up the cash ?   Were they simply outbid by other cities ?

I believe in all cases there were various stadium plans put forth involving public money.        LA  is the number 2 sports media market.   

Las Vegas is not a big sports media market but it is huge in tourism, entertainment, and conventions markets.    

 

[COB]

I just read an article on very prestigious and reliable website Yahoo.  It said the 3 recently stiffed cities, St. Louis, San Diego, and Oskland, owe a combine 220 million bucks in public money for stadium construction and upgrade costs.  Those taxpayers will love paying for the palace their NFL teams abandoned!  JK, they'll hate it.