Jump to content
cincydave8

Cincinnati: West End: FC Cincinnati Stadium

Recommended Posts

Oakley Community council supports the plan, WLWT ran an article show Oakley businesses sport the idea. So today we'll learn if the 2 of 3 commissioners want to walk away from the support of Oakley CC, Oakley Businesses and $200M in private investment because they don't want to use money they already have. It will be truly disappointing vote if that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and its only half complete, and were looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sams Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

 

You guys sound like youre in a cult.

 

Explain?

 

1. Thats at least the 10,000th time Ive read the MLS wants it period on the internet somewhere, possibly 100th time today

2. Please at least acknowledge the Groundhog Day like absurdity of the situation that were in, after sparing no expense on the stadiums the last time, while letting many other things go to rot

3. If you read what I wrote I am actually arguing for Newport as the least insane insane option. It could at least leverage some investments weve made in the Banks parking garages and perhaps drive some bar/restaurant business at the Banks by proximity. Using PBS would be the sane option but MLS may not let sanity prevail as you pointed out

It isn't a cult. The MLS wants soccer only stadiums.

 

Also, PBS would be awful for soccer. It would be 60% empty. It doesn't have safe standing zones, something that is required for MLS stadiums. It wasn't designed for soccer like Atlanta's was. FCC wouldn't own it, they wouldn't control the sales or the scheduling. These are simple reason why PBS would not work. New England is looking for sites in Boston because playing at the Patriots stadium does not work. DC United is finally moving out of their football stadium to a soccer stadium, NYFC is apparently close to finding a site for a soccer specific stadium. It only works in Atlanta and Seattle because they have the same ownership and Atlanta's stadium was built with soccer in mind. PBS was built for soccer in 1998 or whatever but it's completely out dated for soccer. Detroit was an expansion possibility but the ownership group wanted to use Ford Field, the NFL stadium there. MLS has cancelled their visit there. That alone shows why PBS would not work. Playing soccer at PBS is such an awful idea for so many reasons beyond what I listed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically from what I read, they came out and said "No public money!" and are basically trying to strong arm the public, looks like they already got Cranley and maybe some other members of council.

 

However, when you look at the details, they still need at least $75 million from the public.  They would get around $3 million per year from the county which is obviously public money, but since it is being saved right now for US Bank Arena or a revamped convention center or hotel, it isn't being used so we should spend it on the stadium.

 

We also are giving up which is probably one of the most prime properties in the city, putting a TIF on it, and using that TIF to spend back into the stadium.

 

Lastly, they would need infrastructure improvements for parking ramps, interchange fixes, etc.

 

All the same while, the infrastructure and all of this is basically already in place in the West End.  Also, it is already there in Newport, and like Bill pointed out, they can USE the parking infrastructure, etc. already in place downtown to get to Newport and the only infrastructure they may need help on could be a private venture with getting water taxis to scuttle people over. 

 

My thoughts: They are strong arming the city hard on this because Kentucky won't give them as much as the city would.  I truly hope the commissioners do not drop this money to the Lindners, let Kentucky take it, and use that $3 million per year to upgrade US Bank Arena or the Convention Center Hotel.  We can spread it out more.  Otherwise, the US Bank or the Convention Center may never get done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THis is a good deal. The county would be stupid to pass on this. What are we paying $75 million for. Better roads in Oakley and Pleasant Ridge (which need upgrades anyway) some parking structures in an area that is redeveloping and would allow it to become an even denser neighborhood and spur additional development in the area down the line. It will go to help bus service (think bus hub in the area) it will go toward neighborhood development which is ultimately what the county's job is.  How many other developments of this size (which often would cost more taxpayer money) would generate the amount of people to develop additional businesses, residential and hotels in the area? I cant think of any.

 

Yes it is not the west end, but it is also not Mapre which is an old brownfield in an the fairgrounds area with little residential or commercial development around and not really a very conducive area to create that feel. 

 

Oakley already has that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It won’t be a good urban development. From what I’ve heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our region’s best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. It’s going into its second decade now, it’s only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It won’t break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldn’t be anything I’ll get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.


www.cincinnatiideas.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am all wrong on this, I just feel with all the development we have made downtown, picking Newport would be the best option to continue that for the sports stadia, then you can go and get this Oakley development off with offices and residential, etc. 

 

Isn't anyone concerned that splitting these two areas up now between the Banks and Oakley is a concern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It wont be a good urban development. From what Ive heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our regions best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. Its going into its second decade now, its only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It wont break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldnt be anything Ill get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

 

If you think about it, this size (maybe 35k) is a reasonable crowd for games  all over. In Europe, their stadiums sit around 45-50k for most of their leagues (yes some are more). If you look at the sporting marketplace, the Reds in good years average about 25-30k per game. While soccer plays less frequently than the Reds, they play a lot more frequent than the Bengals where 8 home games are more events.

 

Even if you could draw more fans a game in many cases, you still want to tap it at 25k for a while until demand grows so much that expansion is not an option. It is a lot easier to grow revenue by raising ticket prices than putting more seats in the stands.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am all wrong on this, I just feel with all the development we have made downtown, picking Newport would be the best option to continue that for the sports stadia, then you can go and get this Oakley development off with offices and residential, etc. 

 

Isn't anyone concerned that splitting these two areas up now between the Banks and Oakley is a concern?

 

I see both sides. I would prefer Newport over Oakley, but Oakley has the infrastructure that Newport does not have. People can walk from Madtree to the stadium and some of the other bars in the area. Newport does not have this yet. You would essentially have a stadium with nothing walkable in the area. However the boat brigade would be a cool thing.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It wont be a good urban development. From what Ive heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our regions best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. Its going into its second decade now, its only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It wont break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldnt be anything Ill get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

 

It will be 21,000 with the ability to expand it to 30,000 in the future. FCC originally had it at 25,000 but reduced the size to be able to privately fund the stadium completely. It appears you only asked 1 question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

It is not $75 million for a new stadium. It is $0 for the stadium. THe county is investing the money for better roads for residents in the community, the county is investing the money to build parking garages that will generate revenue for the city. The money is going to encourage additional development and payroll taxes in the area from hotels and restaurants and potentially other office development that chooses to go to Oakley. The money is not going to a stadium. THe stadium is the result of the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It wont be a good urban development. From what Ive heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our regions best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. Its going into its second decade now, its only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It wont break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldnt be anything Ill get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

 

If you think about it, this size (maybe 35k) is a reasonable crowd for games  all over. In Europe, their stadiums sit around 45-50k for most of their leagues (yes some are more). If you look at the sporting marketplace, the Reds in good years average about 25-30k per game. While soccer plays less frequently than the Reds, they play a lot more frequent than the Bengals where 8 home games are more events.

 

Even if you could draw more fans a game in many cases, you still want to tap it at 25k for a while until demand grows so much that expansion is not an option. It is a lot easier to grow revenue by raising ticket prices than putting more seats in the stands.

 

You're overstating how big stadiums are in Europe.  Yeah the big clubs have large stadiums but there are just as many small clubs that have stadiums closer to or under 20,000.  Average attendance in England is 35,822.  Germany 41,511.  Spain 27,700.  Italy 22,164.  France 21,029.  And every other county is obviously less then that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

Let me just perform a cost-benefit analysis that you will immediately ignore and claim isn't accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincy513[/member]  I am not an expert on European soccer so I wanted to err on the high side. Ultimately, my point is that smaller is more appropriate from a revenue generation perspective and efficiency. 100k stadiums play to one time or short term events. Think concerts, football, Bowl games, political or religious revivals. ---

 

If the Reds or Tribe played 3-4 times a year, they would fill 100k stadium too. Over 81 games they obviously cant draw those numbers. Same principle with soccer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not $75 million for a new stadium. It is $0 for the stadium. [...] The money is not going to a stadium. THe stadium is the result of the money.

 

I am aware of how it works. The point is, the city/county must invest $75 million of public money into infrastructure and then the team owners will invest $300 million into a new stadium. Got it. So now FCC fans must justify why that $75 million will result in a positive ROI.

 

The county is investing the money for better roads for residents in the community

 

It depends on which roads are "improved". If we build out a bunch of new streets leading to/from the parking garage and stadium, it doesn't benefit the community, it only benefits the people specifically going to/from the game. If we invest in meaningfully improving the I-71/Norwood Lateral interchange or other public streets nearby, then you will have a point.

 

the county is investing the money to build parking garages that will generate revenue for the city

 

Again, it depends on the details. Most likely the city will pay for the garage and lease it to the Port Authority for $1 so they can operate it and make a huge profit. Which would be a nice funding stream for the Port Authority.

 

The money is going to encourage additional development and payroll taxes in the area from hotels and restaurants and potentially other office development that chooses to go to Oakley.

 

This is where I'm going to say, show me the economic study. When the city gave tax breaks to GE, they had to justify it with actual detailed math. "GE will create (a) new jobs, resulting in $(b) additional salary within the city. Therefore the city will give $© work of tax breaks to GE, resulting in $(b-c) worth of additional tax revenue coming into the city." Let's stop glossing over the details. How many additional hotel room nights will be generated as a result of the new stadium? How much additional spending will be created at area bars and restaurants. Hire some economists and do a study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

Let me just perform a cost-benefit analysis that you will immediately ignore and claim isn't accurate.

 

Why do FCC fans act like they are being attacked when someone asks them straight-to-the-point questions? Show me that this is actually a good deal for taxpayers and I will be more supportive of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“What MLS wants” is irrelevant to me until someone makes a good case of why the investing $75-100 of taxpayer money into this project will result in a positive ROI. I have not even seen anyone try to make that case.

 

And additionally...why that would be a better investment than other projects we could do with that money instead.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there are other projects worthy of funds and I'm not saying a soccer stadium is the top priority.

 

However, "what MLS wants" is the reality. It's not a cultish chant as some seem to imply.

 

If you want to get into MLS, you play by their requirements. If not, there's several other markets (Nashville, Sacramento, Phoenix, Raleigh, STL and SD 2.0) that are also vying. If you apply for a job meeting only some of the qualifications, you're not likely to get that job.

 

Ultimately, it's up to the county/city/etc. to decide if a soccer stadium is worth their investment/money and that's fine, they may not feel that it is, but Paul Brown Stadium isn't an option. If sharing a stadium was an option, they'd be better off going with Nippert anyways, which MLS has already declined an interest in. Trotting out PBS again and again (while it may seem like a "sane" option) is a nonstarter. It's typical Portune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

Let me just perform a cost-benefit analysis that you will immediately ignore and claim isn't accurate.

 

Why do FCC fans act like they are being attacked when someone asks them straight-to-the-point questions? Show me that this is actually a good deal for taxpayers and I will be more supportive of it.

 

There's no time to do that between now and 11am. You'll just have to believe putting $75M to improve the infrastructure in Oakley that is supported by Oakley CC and Oakley business is a good deal. I can't imagine how not having better roads, sewer pipes, pedestrian access to Oakley square via ped bridge over railroad track (I'm just spitballing here) among probably others is a bad idea. But frankly, there's no time. It comes down to a county vote today and then a MLS vote in mid Dec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Which is why it was spit out yesterday all of this, after Cranley's election, etc.  Because when you get to the nitty gritty, it probably isn't a great deal for the taxpayers. 

 

I'm not saying it's a bad deal, but I would hate for all this money to be poured in like Travis has said, only for the benefit of the stadium.  Why can't they answer that question?  When I say "they", I mean FC Cincinnati.

 

I really loathe rich people yelling in our face saying this is such a good deal, but then they don't have details.  I get it all the time in business, it's a common tactic, but a lot of times when you see the results or end output, it isn't a good deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincy513[/member]  I am not an expert on European soccer so I wanted to err on the high side. Ultimately, my point is that smaller is more appropriate from a revenue generation perspective and efficiency. 100k stadiums play to one time or short term events. Think concerts, football, Bowl games, political or religious revivals. ---

 

If the Reds or Tribe played 3-4 times a year, they would fill 100k stadium too. Over 81 games they obviously cant draw those numbers. Same principle with soccer.

 

Does anyone want to make a good guess at how moving to MLS will affect attendance?

 

Will higher pricing possibly mean less fans in the seats?

 

Or will the MLS spotlight mean a healthy increase?  The Manitoba Moose of the AHL had a loyal following - not unlike FCC - in Winnipeg, avg. almost 9k fans a game. Yet when the NHL Winnipeg Jets moved back into town the avg. attendance went up to around 15k.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

Let me just perform a cost-benefit analysis that you will immediately ignore and claim isn't accurate.

 

Why do FCC fans act like they are being attacked when someone asks them straight-to-the-point questions? Show me that this is actually a good deal for taxpayers and I will be more supportive of it.

 

I'm just fed up with all of the people who point to deadspin articles about stadium financing and proclaim no city should ever spend money on any stadium ever anywhere. Sorry if I'm coming off agitated, but it's really frustrating to deal with so many people who's opinions I usually respect, and yet can't seem to come at this topic with a shred of critical thinking (not actually talking about you taestell)

 

People pretend sports bring no revenue to cities, and that just isn't true. There are numerous quantifiable benefits, but I think there are so many unquantifiable benefits to sports that people ignore because they don't care about sports personally.

 

The same people who often cry about sports funding are the same ones demanding arts programming. The inability to see that sports and arts are the same thing is incredibly frustrating. Both are assets to the community that cannot be entirely quantified. I support both, and I don't see how you can support one and not the other. For example: I probably go to Music Hall once a year on average, but I still value it and think tax money should support the programming there. Same with Union Terminal, Art Museum, etc. There are benefits to these expenditures that cannot be entirely calculated.

 

Even the 1996 stadium tax wasn't that bad of a deal. The deal the county signed with the Bengals was a monstrosity. But looking back, I don't think the 1/2 cent sales tax increase was inherently a bad idea. But there are now so many people who have been burned once before and think no spending on sports is the only solution.

 

There are real economic benefits. The most tangible benefits that I can quantify without an economic study are: ~$500,000 annually from admissions taxes (3% on avg $46 tickets over 17 games per year), $126,000 annually from income taxes from players alone ($7 million avg annual salary which has increased every year for a long time in MLS taxed at 1.8%, not counting bus tax). This doesn't count tax money raised from parking, sales of merchandise, front office staff salaries, hotel taxes, increased property taxes around the stadium, admissions for concerts/other events, etc. You would have a hard time convincing me this deal would not bring $75 million into the city/county coffers over the course of several decades. This barely seems debatable, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THis is a good deal. The county would be stupid to pass on this. What are we paying $75 million for. Better roads in Oakley and Pleasant Ridge (which need upgrades anyway) some parking structures in an area that is redeveloping and would allow it to become an even denser neighborhood and spur additional development in the area down the line. It will go to help bus service (think bus hub in the area) it will go toward neighborhood development which is ultimately what the county's job is.  How many other developments of this size (which often would cost more taxpayer money) would generate the amount of people to develop additional businesses, residential and hotels in the area? I cant think of any.

 

Yes it is not the west end, but it is also not Mapre which is an old brownfield in an the fairgrounds area with little residential or commercial development around and not really a very conducive area to create that feel. 

 

Oakley already has that.

 

You're possibly the biggest streetcar skeptic on this board, and you're just going to gloss over this $75m like that, for some vague yet-unnamed infrastructure improvements? You guys (anti-streetcar/pro-stadium) are really inconsistent; it's hair-pullingly frustrating to watch. Please reevaluate the proportionality with which you evaluate public investments. (Not trying to pick on you in particular.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money is going to encourage additional development and payroll taxes in the area from hotels and restaurants and potentially other office development that chooses to go to Oakley.

 

This is where I'm going to say, show me the economic study. When the city gave tax breaks to GE, they had to justify it with actual detailed math. "GE will create (a) new jobs, resulting in $(b) additional salary within the city. Therefore the city will give $© work of tax breaks to GE, resulting in $(b-c) worth of additional tax revenue coming into the city." Let's stop glossing over the details. How many additional hotel room nights will be generated as a result of the new stadium? How much additional spending will be created at area bars and restaurants. Hire some economists and do a study.

 

1) it is common sense that an anchor development like this will spur additional development.

 

2) You can hire an economist to make any rosy projections you want which will no way be accurate. Look at the streetcar numbers for example of this.

 

Point is, you have something like this which is going to be privately funded outside of infrastructure, how is that any different than any other capital expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money is going to encourage additional development and payroll taxes in the area from hotels and restaurants and potentially other office development that chooses to go to Oakley.

 

This is where I'm going to say, show me the economic study. When the city gave tax breaks to GE, they had to justify it with actual detailed math. "GE will create (a) new jobs, resulting in $(b) additional salary within the city. Therefore the city will give $© work of tax breaks to GE, resulting in $(b-c) worth of additional tax revenue coming into the city." Let's stop glossing over the details. How many additional hotel room nights will be generated as a result of the new stadium? How much additional spending will be created at area bars and restaurants. Hire some economists and do a study.

 

1) it is common sense that an anchor development like this will spur additional development.

 

2) You can hire an economist to make any rosy projections you want which will no way be accurate. Look at the streetcar numbers for example of this.

 

Point is, you have something like this which is going to be privately funded outside of infrastructure, how is that any different than any other capital expenditure.

 

I think a lot of people have a problem with this, and I can see it: Why does this get a free pass yet the streetcar doesn't?  Why is regional transit a back burner question yet this is pushed to the front?  How will this affect US Bank Arena, etc.

 

My biggest gripe is this: The county has limited funds, Newport will take it.  Why spend $3 million a year and all this other infrastructure updates to an already HOT neighborhood for a stadium, when Newport can take it and we can spend that $3 million a year on other needs like the US Bank Arena?

 

^The reason people can't answer that and why FC Cincinnati won't, is because they know they won't get the business they want in Newport, or they won't get the tax breaks they want there, and so they are pushing this on as a "WOO is ME, this is a slam dunk, etc......" yet they have no written reports detailing exactly what they want but now they need a vote.

 

This is a fleecing in the most classic way possible, and the orange and blue tinted glasses are killing ppl's logics.  The Lindner's and Berding are doing basically exactly what Trump did to America, "It's a great deal, great here, great that", but offer no details on it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people have a problem with this, and I can see it: Why does this get a free pass yet the streetcar doesn't?  Why is regional transit a back burner question yet this is pushed to the front?  How will this affect US Bank Arena, etc.

 

My biggest gripe is this: The county has limited funds, Newport will take it.  Why spend $3 million a year and all this other infrastructure updates to an already HOT neighborhood for a stadium, when Newport can take it and we can spend that $3 million a year on other needs like the US Bank Arena?

 

 

I think these are all fair points and in my opinion, the club has not done the best job of making their case for why these funds should be used for a soccer stadium. Granted, this is all coming post-election and nearing an MLS deadline, but that hastily put together press conference yesterday seemed way too tense.

 

I would counter with this though: I think this project is more deserving than US Bank Arena receiving public assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ it is not that the streetcar gets a pass. It is the fact that when asked for the numbers on the stadium, many of those seem people championed the rosy numbers of the streetcar. The streetcar has numbers now which are not very rosy nor near the projections. That does not mean the streetcar is a failure. 

 

Some of these numbers are pointless because they are all puffed up anyway. You can get numbers on the stadium too but they will be beyond rosy projections that will fall short of expectations. That is how the game works. That is not to say that this is not a good investment, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people have a problem with this, and I can see it: Why does this get a free pass yet the streetcar doesn't?  Why is regional transit a back burner question yet this is pushed to the front?  How will this affect US Bank Arena, etc.

 

My biggest gripe is this: The county has limited funds, Newport will take it.  Why spend $3 million a year and all this other infrastructure updates to an already HOT neighborhood for a stadium, when Newport can take it and we can spend that $3 million a year on other needs like the US Bank Arena?

 

 

I think these are all fair points and in my opinion, the club has not done the best job of making their case for why these funds should be used for a soccer stadium. Granted, this is all coming post-election and nearing an MLS deadline, but that hastily put together press conference yesterday seemed way too tense.

 

I would counter with this though: I think this project is more deserving than US Bank Arena receiving public assistance.

 

^Yeah, I don't disagree with you that people will have a different set of opinions on what is more important and I understand that, and that is opinion based.  That is why we vote in the leaders to make those decisions.

 

If you put Cincy only and said here are the options 1, 2, 3, and we choose 1 which is FC Cincy, I am fine.

 

If you put it 2,3 which one do you want, and you say 2 Convention Center, I am fine with it, where 1 was eliminated by going across the river, that's more my point.

 

My other point is I hate the tactic Berding pulled, I just absolutely loathe business people like that.  Seriously, these guys got more money than God, to come and say woooo is me is kind of pathetic.  They should just be straight up, hey, we can't make this work unless you guys help us out, we believe in the long term this is a great investment, and we will continue to champion Cincy and bring more jobs and more investment all along the way... that would rub me a lot better than shady business

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ it is not that the streetcar gets a pass. It is the fact that when asked for the numbers on the stadium, many of those seem people championed the rosy numbers of the streetcar. The streetcar has numbers now which are not very rosy nor near the projections. That does not mean the streetcar is a failure. 

 

Some of these numbers are pointless because they are all puffed up anyway. You can get numbers on the stadium too but they will be beyond rosy projections that will fall short of expectations. That is how the game works. That is not to say that this is not a good investment, it is.

 

Are you talking about ridership projections or economic development projections? Because the amount of development that has occurred along the streetcar route since the streetcar opened has already exceeded projections, even if ridership hasn't yet met expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Ryan, let me address your previous point. There is absolutely a positive, intangible benefit that comes along with adding a new major league team to the city. Your comparison to the arts is spot on. While the average Cincinnatian may only visit an event a Music Hall two or three times during their entire life, the fact that we have a world class venue, a world class symphony and other arts institutions, has a positive impact on the city that can not be quantified in dollars. So I'm not saying that economics are the only factor that should be considered when deciding whether taxpayer money is used for infrastructure to support the new stadium.

 

Personally, I have a lot of questions about the site plan. Will the stadium be built in an urban way that Oakley residents can walk to it ... or will they be crossing a sea of parking lots? Will the area be designed so that new office buildings and retail could be added and utilize the same parking garage ... or will this parking garage literally only be used on game day and sit 99% empty on every other day of the year? If you can leverage these infrastructure investments to actually be a benefit to the overall community/city/county, you have a much stronger case. If the infrastructure is only used on game days ... then it's a waste.

 

Now, back to the economics...

 

Findings from an economic impact study from May of this year. taestell[/member]

 

 

So to sum it up, the report claims:

 

- 2200 to 2600 jobs created during construction

- $12 million per year in new salaries for players / staff / etc.

- $45 million per year in new tourism revenue (hotels, restaurants, etc.) and more than 500 new hospitality jobs

- $3.7 million per year in tax revenue during construction

 

Here's why I am very skeptical of the claim that adding an additional major league team will result in additional hospitality revenue. On the surface, it makes sense. People decide to go to an FCC game, hit up a bar or restaurant before, spend some of their disposable income in the city, everybody wins. The problem is, people have a limited amount of disposable income. Usually when they decide to go out a spend money on one thing (FCC game) they are just shifting money from something else they would have spent it on otherwise (night out at the movies, a Reds/Bengals game, going shopping).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Record I do think joining MLS has huge intangible, hard to quantify benefits (just like the streetcar.) I think soccer and MLS will only grow over time in cultural importance. It is pretty unusual luck that we have a shot at joining over some faster growing peer cities all things considered.

 

It may be crying over spilt milk, but I don’t see an Oakley site as building into the strengths and synergys our city has already created namely at the Banks. The reasons that led to this Oakley plan are real but to me they are a little frustrating. But an Oakley stadium would be functional and help us win the bid.


www.cincinnatiideas.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You seem to look at it as a zero sum gain. Yes, the majority of money spent will be by locals but there is always a contingent from out of town that will travel in for a game. You may not fill 3 new hotels every night but it will sell room nights. You will get people from Lex, Columbus and other areas outside Cincy that will come in to visit or it gives them another option to stay another night  (Go to a Reds game today and soccer tomorrow)

 

Even if the $45 million per year is closer to 20-25 million it is still pretty good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...