(06-10-2023, 10:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because if the franchise doesn't make moves to increase revenue then you could be rooting for the San Antonio Bengals.

If maybe hosting a singular Super Bowl game is the difference between the team staying or leaving, then they're already good as gone, but I don't believe it.

The franchise already made moves to increase revenue. It's called winning. Green Bay and Buffalo are both outdoor stadiums, both small markets, neither have ever hosted a Super Bowl, Green Bay doesn't have a super rich owner, and yet they have paid their QBs and have continued to exist.

(06-09-2023, 01:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hard pass on the retractable roof. Won't do the Bengals any favors as it's clear they keep needing to be used to playing in weather. The entire division is outdoors, KC is outdoors, Buffalo is outdoors.

It would seem it's more for other events than the football team. Different avenues for generating cash flow. You should care about that, as it's another way to add money to the escrow coffers.

(06-09-2023, 09:39 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: I get what you are saying but a retractable roof could bring things like a SB to Cincy so I think it would be a big picture addition.

Does Cincinnati have enough hotel rooms for a Super Bowl? Jacksonville did not, so they had to dock cruise ships to house people for their Super Bowl.  I guess Cincinnati could dock some rivier boats...

#1 priority is to have the best playing surface including sideline facilities and coaching communications systems available for our players and coaches! #2 Upgraded locker room, weight, training and recovery facilities. #3 Team Cafeteria. #4 Season ticket holder experience. #5 luxury boxes. #6 retractable roof.

(06-10-2023, 10:40 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If maybe hosting a singular Super Bowl game is the difference between the team staying or leaving, then they're already good as gone, but I don't believe it.

The franchise already made moves to increase revenue. It's called winning. Green Bay and Buffalo are both outdoor stadiums, both small markets, neither have ever hosted a Super Bowl, Green Bay doesn't have a super rich owner, and yet they have paid their QBs and have continued to exist.

It's just not Superbowls though. It's concerts, conventions,  bowl games, NFL Draft. and Final Fours.

(06-11-2023, 03:25 PM)J24 Wrote: It's just not Superbowls though. It's concerts, conventions,  bowl games, NFL Draft. and Final Fours.

I doubt we would be getting bowl games (of any worth) or final fours. We have a brand new soccer stadium and the 11 cities in the US they chose were all the big and coastal cities (and Kansas City, which is outdoors, but kind of seems like a pity selection for the interior of the country more than anything). Cincinnati just isn't a particularly tempting location for some of those big events.

As for the NFL draft, in 2023 it was in Kansas City (outdoor stadium), in 2021 it was in Cleveland (outdoor stadium), and in 2019 it was in Nashville (outdoor stadium). The draft has nothing to do with having a roof on your stadium.

You are right that it would be a bigger concert venue, but I don't think that or any other events would be worth the couple hundred million it would cost taxpayers to put a roof on the 23-year-old stadium.

(06-08-2023, 01:48 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Just make sure you get to the early season games! 

In the winter it's ice skating 

(06-11-2023, 04:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I doubt we would be getting bowl games (of any worth) or final fours. We have a brand new soccer stadium and the 11 cities in the US they chose were all the big and coastal cities (and Kansas City, which is outdoors, but kind of seems like a pity selection for the interior of the country more than anything). Cincinnati just isn't a particularly tempting location for some of those big events.

As for the NFL draft, in 2023 it was in Kansas City (outdoor stadium), in 2021 it was in Cleveland (outdoor stadium), and in 2019 it was in Nashville (outdoor stadium). The draft has nothing to do with having a roof on your stadium.

You are right that it would be a bigger concert venue, but I don't think that or any other events would be worth the couple hundred million it would cost taxpayers to put a roof on the 23-year-old stadium.

Yep the draft doesn't take place at the stadium at all.

Nashville was great. The stage was set up right at the end of Broadway.

(06-10-2023, 10:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because if the franchise doesn't make moves to increase revenue then you could be rooting for the San Antonio Bengals.

That ain’t happening….at least not in the next 10-15 years, if ever. Bengals, particularly the Brown kids, grandkids, etc, are more forwarded thinking than Mike and even Paul is/was. There’s no one…no entity…that I’ve even had a sniff of who would offer the Browns enough money to move. Even if they did, Browns consider Cincinnati home. They see the Bengals as a spotlight on the the Riverfront and a draw from probably Central OH down into KY, to VA/WVA, and that doesn’t include the ever growing support from Europe, whose fans spend money on Bengals Merch.

Maybe back in the day (as Mike did) it was threatened to move the team to get a new stadium. I don’t see that as a viable option for this team for no other reason I don’t see the Brown family (who will own this team for a very long time) making a move like that to go to another city where they may not be embraced nearly as much nor as well as Cincinnati does.

The Bengals were founded here. Impossible to see how that history would play out anywhere else.

Covered stadium? Meh….if they’re refurbishing Paycor, I don’t see them tearing down and building another stadium just to get a dome. Swimming pools? Seriously? ½ the season is played in the cold here. Not feeling that.

Refurbishment should take Paycor into the 2050s. I don’t particularly like the way it looks, but as others stated, putting up some large video boards, making the concourses a little more festive (vs the drab concrete and beer stands), adding some attractions like end zone “clubs”….and things of that nature would help.

A roof? I like football….I like it when it’s cold. I like it when it’s played in the elements. Putting on a dome, in addition to being crazy costly would make it too sterile. That takes the history, the soul out of this team.

It’s not who we are. We’re an AFC North team. WE’re gutty and gritty. We don’t need nor want any kind of dome for our home stadium.

(06-14-2023, 10:45 AM)Graphicguy Wrote: That ain’t happening….at least not in the next 10-15 years, if ever.  Bengals, particularly the Brown kids, grandkids, etc, are more forwarded thinking than Mike and even Paul is/was.  There’s no one…no entity…that I’ve even had a sniff of who would offer the Browns enough money to move.  Even if they did, Browns consider Cincinnati home.  They see the Bengals as a spotlight on the the Riverfront and a draw from probably Central OH down into KY, to VA/WVA, and that doesn’t include the ever growing support from Europe, whose fans spend money on Bengals Merch.

Maybe back in the day (as Mike did) it was threatened to move the team to get a new stadium.  I don’t see that as a viable option for this team for no other reason I don’t see the Brown family (who will own this team for a very long time) making a move like that to go to another city where they may not be embraced nearly as much nor as well as Cincinnati does.

The Bengals were founded here.  Impossible to see how that history would play out anywhere else.

Covered stadium?  Meh….if they’re refurbishing Paycor, I don’t see them tearing down and building another stadium just to get a dome.  Swimming pools?  Seriously?  ½ the season is played in the cold here.  Not feeling that.

Refurbishment should take Paycor into the 2050s.  I don’t particularly like the way it looks, but as others stated, putting up some large video boards, making the concourses a little more festive (vs the drab concrete and beer stands), adding some attractions like end zone “clubs”….and things of that nature would help.

A roof?  I like football….I like it when it’s cold.  I like it when it’s played in the elements.  Putting on a dome, in addition to being crazy costly would make it too sterile.  That takes the history, the soul out of this team.  

It’s not who we are.  We’re an AFC North team.  WE’re gutty and gritty.  We don’t need nor want any kind of dome for our home stadium.

I agreed with you when I was younger. At 64, I don't especially like sitting in the rain nor the cold. Putting a cover over most of the seating and leaving the field uncovered would suit me just fine. That said, I do not go to as many games as I used to so I don't really care if they enclose it or not. 

I’ve been to Ford’s field, Lucas Oil Stadium, Cowboys Stadium, and of course, Paycor. Cowboys stadium is a gauche monstrosity that isn’t much fun. While I do like Lucas Oil and Ford, I don’t like them any more than Paycor, or Solider Field, which I’ve also been to, and prefer over domes.

Regarding Super Bowl(s), I’ll take a hard pass. Whatever alleged benefit we’d get would be more than offset by the crazies, the prostitutes and the drugs that come with it.

(06-14-2023, 01:58 PM)Graphicguy Wrote: I’ve been to Ford’s field, Lucas Oil Stadium, Cowboys Stadium, and of course, Paycor.  Cowboys stadium is a gauche monstrosity that isn’t much fun.  While I do like Lucas Oil and Ford, I don’t like them any more than Paycor, or Solider Field, which I’ve also been to, and prefer over domes.

Regarding Super Bowl(s), I’ll take a hard pass.  Whatever alleged benefit we’d get would be more than offset by the crazies, the prostitutes and the drugs that come with it.

Now that's a party!!!
I never really liked Lucas Oil, it looks like a warehouse. At least Paycor looks like a football stadium.