Build A New Stadium, or Keep The Ralph And Spend "Only," About $400 Million?

[Dude]

The Bengals indeed call the shots. That it was the most lopsided deal ever is history - somebody wrote a book about it.

Public opinion - and blackouts - have caused ownership to soften their stance through the years. UC is revamping their campus stadium, and I'm sure that they are paying the costs associated with staging their games. It is possible that the Bgal's aren't extracting a rental fee. Haven't read anything about it either way. My guess is no.

UC is paying rent, although they may have worked out a deal for this year. But they aren't playing there for free.

Even OSU had to rent the place when they had their spring game here this year.

[stuckincincy]

UC is paying rent, although they may have worked out a deal for this year. But they aren't playing there for free.

Even OSU had to rent the place when they had their spring game here this year.

Thanks - clears that up.

[better days]

UC is paying rent, although they may have worked out a deal for this year. But they aren't playing there for free.

Even OSU had to rent the place when they had their spring game here this year.

The point is they are paying rent to the Bengals, NOT to any Govenment.

[Dude]

The point is they are paying rent to the Bengals, NOT to any Govenment.

And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.

There are no free rides in sports or government.

[Historian]

They're refurbishing Nippert?

Cool. I always liked that place. It has that Franklin Field, Cornell Ivy League feel to it.

The Bills played the Bengals there until Riverfront was built.

[stuckincincy]

And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.

There are no free rides in sports or government.

Take your pick:

http://bengals.enquirer.com/2000/08/...se_pretty.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...16330349497852

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/1/16...-their-last-re

[IlluminatusUIUC]

YES Seriously. UB is a State College, the Stadium is Government owned.

There is no way in hell the Government is going to charge itself rent.

As Dude noted, we're dealing with two governments here. The state vs. the county. The same things happens all over the country - the UCLA Bruins pay to play in the Rose Bowl
http://dailybruin.com/2010/10/12/cou...es_renovation/

With the construction, UCLA also agreed to new lease terms on the stadium. UCLA is dropping the remaining 13 years on its contract with the Rose Bowl for a new 30-year lease that will expire at the end of the 2042 football season. Under the new lease, there will also be changes to the revenue plan.


UCLA currently pays the Rose Bowl 8 percent of all regular ticket sales and receives $50 per luxury box ticket. Under the new deal, UCLA will still pay 8 percent, but the Rose Bowl will no longer pay UCLA the $50 per luxury box ticket. Pasadena will manage the sale of premium seats, according to board documents.


UCLA, however, will retain all television revenue after a substantial proportion of the project has been completed, according to board documents. This is a change from the 8 percent it currently pays to the city.


Membership fees for Rose Bowl lounges will be split between Pasadena and UCLA. The university will retain the first $250,000 of revenue, which will increase by 3 percent each year, while the rest will be paid for Pasadena’s debt service.

[Fletch]

If NYC has issues with PSL's, its not about economy. it's about what people are willing to pay for a crappy product.

I think in NYC. I'd think that in Buffalo it's got to be both. I don't see PSL's working well here under any circumstances.

[better days]

And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.

There are no free rides in sports or government.

The Bengals are a PRIVATE COMPANY with NO GOVERNMENT affiliation!

You are arguing for arguments sake with no leg to stand on.

UB being a STATE University would pay NO rent to play in any Stadium owned by the Government if no other tenants are involved.

[Fletch]

I really don't think you're putting any thought into what you're saying. Nothing you've posted about this is logical.

LOL

better days is loveable in this way.

- - - Updated - - -

And, as I already said, the Bengals pay rent to the government. The government is still getting paid for the use of the facility. The primary tenant is passing on the cost to the Bearcats.

There are no free rides in sports or government.

It's called subletting better days.

[better days]

As Dude noted, we're dealing with two governments here. The state vs. the county. The same things happens all over the country - the UCLA Bruins pay to play in the Rose Bowl
http://dailybruin.com/2010/10/12/cou...es_renovation/

As I already said, the County could easily transfer ownership of the Stadium to the State.

UCLA pays the Rose Bowl................not ANY GOVENMENT.

I think UB playing at the Ralph is a very viable option.

[Dude]

The only example I can find where a team doesn't pay rent is UMass playing at Gillette. However, Gillette is privately owned by Robert Kraft, and this is a temporary arrangement while UMass' on-campus facility is being built. Every other instance I've found where a school plays in an off-campus publicly owned stadium they are paying rent, either directly to the primary tenant or to the ownership. There are several instances where a facility is state owned, but I can't find any stats where a state school plays for free (GA State, as an example, pays $75,000/game to play at the Georgia Dome, which is owned by the state of Georgia).

So, you've got:
- logistics: moving stadium 20 miles away making it harder for students to attend games; remote location and lack of public transit makes it hard for students without cars (thus requiring extra cost of providing shuttle service to and from games)
- size: additional 30,000 seats that won't be used on a consistent basis
- cost: need to pay (likely high) rent plus cost of game-day operations, may or may not get to keep full revenue from concessions depending on lease

Benefits:
- enough seats to handle crowds for occasional games vs. "big-time" opponents

From the county's perspective, they have to continue to maintain the facility in addition to the new stadium, unless the new one is privately owned. The new stadium will be nicer and in a better location, so it will be the preferred venue for major events. The amount of rent they would have to charge to the lone tenant would in all likelihood make the deal cost-prohibitive for a state university with a relatively small athletic booster population.

I could go on but I'm just rehashing at this point. I've yet to see a compelling argument or reason for why UB would move to RWS, and I don't think I will.

[better days]

LOL

better days is loveable in this way.

- - - Updated - - -



It's called subletting better days.

If the Bills are no longer tenants of Ralph Wilson Stadium, there would be no subletting.

[Dude]

As I already said, the County could easily transfer ownership of the Stadium to the State.

UCLA pays the Rose Bowl................not ANY GOVENMENT.

I think UB playing at the Ralph is a very viable option.

The Rose Bowl is owned by the City of Pasadena.

Keep trying.

[better days]

The only example I can find where a team doesn't pay rent is UMass playing at Gillette. However, Gillette is privately owned by Robert Kraft, and this is a temporary arrangement while UMass' on-campus facility is being built. Every other instance I've found where a school plays in an off-campus publicly owned stadium they are paying rent, either directly to the primary tenant or to the ownership. There are several instances where a facility is state owned, but I can't find any stats where a state school plays for free (GA State, as an example, pays $75,000/game to play at the Georgia Dome, which is owned by the state of Georgia).

So, you've got:
- logistics: moving stadium 20 miles away making it harder for students to attend games; remote location and lack of public transit makes it hard for students without cars (thus requiring extra cost of providing shuttle service to and from games)
- size: additional 30,000 seats that won't be used on a consistent basis
- cost: need to pay (likely high) rent plus cost of game-day operations, may or may not get to keep full revenue from concessions depending on lease

Benefits:
- enough seats to handle crowds for occasional games vs. "big-time" opponents

From the county's perspective, they have to continue to maintain the facility in addition to the new stadium, unless the new one is privately owned. The new stadium will be nicer and in a better location, so it will be the preferred venue for major events. The amount of rent they would have to charge to the lone tenant would in all likelihood make the deal cost-prohibitive for a state university with a relatively small athletic booster population.

I could go on but I'm just rehashing at this point. I've yet to see a compelling argument or reason for why UB would move to RWS, and I don't think I will.

You can make arguments for & against UB playing at the Ralph, but RENT is not an argument that should be under discussion.

[Dude]

The Bengals are a PRIVATE COMPANY with NO GOVERNMENT affiliation!

You are arguing for arguments sake with no leg to stand on.

UB being a STATE University would pay NO rent to play in any Stadium owned by the Government if no other tenants are involved.

How do you get out of bed in the morning? Seriously. Are you really this obtuse, or are you just trying desperately to save face? It's not working, and you're just making yourself look more and more foolish.

[Dude]

You can make arguments for & against UB playing at the Ralph, but RENT is not an argument that should be under discussion.

When you provide proof that they would be able to play there rent free, it will no longer be a topic for discussion.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

As I already said, the County could easily transfer ownership of the Stadium to the State.

UCLA pays the Rose Bowl................not ANY GOVENMENT.

I think UB playing at the Ralph is a very viable option.

The Rose Bowl Operating Company is a non-profit owned by the City of Pasadena. Look at their Board of Directors: http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/rboc.asp

Purpose and Function The mission of the Rose Bowl Operating Company is to return economic and civic value to the City of Pasadena by managing a world-class stadium and a professional quality golf course complex in a community based environment.

If you're going to claim that somehow doesn't count because the City chooses to use a holding company, then you're grasping.

Whether or not the Ralph is viable for the Bulls is a different question from whether Erie County would let them use it for free.

[better days]

The Rose Bowl is owned by the City of Pasadena.

Keep trying.

And controlled by a non profit CORPORATION.

I keep trying & WINNING.

[Fletch]

Take your pick:

http://bengals.enquirer.com/2000/08/...se_pretty.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...16330349497852

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/1/16...-their-last-re

Interesting

That removes all kinds of speculation.

I hit that first link that's about 14 years old, from it;

“I think Cincinnati is in the last group of stadiums, with Baltimore and Tampa Bay, Nashville and St. Louis, that are heavily government oriented,” said John Moag, managing director at the investment firm Legg Mason Wood Walker in Baltimore and former chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority.


“Those days are coming to an end,” as the public demands teams pay more of stadium costs, he said. Two more recent leases, in Denver and Detroit, obligate the teams to pay more stadium costs than the Bengals will.

Those days seem to have come to even more of an end these days as financially strapped taxpayers question even more why a club of exclusive billionaires need local or state tax money to help them fund their business expenses. There's a tidal wave of blowback emerging that hasn't crescendo-ed yet.

That's why I think that Pegula's going to have to pay mostly if not all of his own money for any new stadium. If he does I don't see why he wouldn't want to do so almost immediately. If it makes sense for him personally then I don't see it attached to any time frame besides the existing lease. Maybe he'll work out something with the county.

Say he's approved owner soon, announces this season that he's going to build a new stadium, gets plans, etc., he can probably have the thing ready to play in by the 2017 season. Would it be worth about $370M to him to have it three seasons before he otherwise would?

I have no idea nor will I speculate, just asking the mostly rhetorical question. I would think that once he's approved he'll have a press conference within a few months to outline his plans.