(03-28-2017, 12:56 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I'm off of Bardstown Rd. almost to Bullitt Co. Yeah, they keep teasing an NBA team at the Yum Center, but I don't think it would sell...I'd love to have an NFL team here... with the proximity of Nashville, Cincy and Indy there could be some great rivalries.... 

Y'all are high. Louisville would eat up an NBA team. We have the highest ratings in terms of just about every sporting event in the country. We are dying for a professional team and the NBA would fit super well here, especially if we got a team like the Kings with at least Buddy Hield to be excited about

(03-28-2017, 02:45 PM)eoxyod Wrote: Y'all are high. Louisville would eat up an NBA team. We have the highest ratings in terms of just about every sporting event in the country. We are dying for a professional team and the NBA would fit super well here, especially if we got a team like the Kings with at least Buddy Hield to be excited about

Yep.

I don't know about all sports, but I have been saying for years that an NBA team would thrive in Memphis and/or Louisville.

Memphis finally got a team, but I guess that is a much larger city than Louisville.

When I first started following college basketball Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati, Georgia Tech, and Florida State were all in the Metro Conference.  UC had big rivalries with both Memphis and Louisville.  They love their B-ball in those cities.

(03-28-2017, 09:19 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Loyalty? My only question is those who refuse to go to the stadium and buy tickets, refuse to support the owner/team, do you consider them loyal?

I consider myself a loyal fan. I root for the team and the players to do well. I don't root for other teams to beat us. I am financially capable of going to games. I choose not to because I disagree with Mikey's way of doing things. The are other diehard fans not financially able to go to games or life to far away. Do you question their loyalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW the vote among owners was 31-1 to allow the move.

So no need to single out Mike.

(03-28-2017, 02:45 PM)eoxyod Wrote: Y'all are high. Louisville would eat up an NBA team. We have the highest ratings in terms of just about every sporting event in the country. We are dying for a professional team and the NBA would fit super well here, especially if we got a team like the Kings with at least Buddy Hield to be excited about

I don't think so. Kentucky as a whole is used to following college ball. I'm not sure the fan base would switch to a professional team. Sure, people would go to a few games, but I don't think it would develop the following UK and Louisville basketball have. But, that's just my opinion....

(03-28-2017, 03:12 PM)BenZoo2 Wrote: I consider myself a loyal fan.  I root for the team and the players to do well.  I don't root for other teams to beat us.  I am financially capable of going to games.  I choose not to because I disagree with Mikey's way of doing things.  The are other diehard fans not financially able to go to games or life to far away.  Do you question their loyalty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would anyone question anyone's loyalty to the team unable to financially participate? I stated exactly that in the post. I was clear, choose like you to not participate financially because of your disagreement with Mike Brown. I don't think you deserve his loyalty either. The door swings both ways in my humble opinion.

The loyalty question was brought in relation to owners moving teams, some feel it is disloyal to all fans. I disagree, I think it disloyal to loyal fans only.

My father had a saying that went like this.

"When they came for my football team I said nothing because it was a lame team.

When they came for my wife and children I said nothing because they were annoying.

And when they came for me no one said anything because I was an asshole"

(03-28-2017, 03:23 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why would anyone question anyone's loyalty to the team unable to financially participate? I stated exactly that in the post. I was clear, choose like you to not participate financially because of your disagreement with Mike Brown. I don't think you deserve his loyalty either. The door swings both ways in my humble opinion.

The loyalty question was brought in relation to owners moving teams, some feel it is disloyal to all fans. I disagree, I think it disloyal to loyal fans only.

I do watch his product through the biggest revenue stream to him. I said I root for the team and the players. And I simply asked you if those who can't go have their loyalty questioned. That stadium could sit fully empty on gameday and mike still makes plenty of dough. Perhaps that would finally get his attention. If Mikey takes his team elsewhere so be it. I think cincy has proven it can, and will support a team. This whole thing has s moot anyway unless and until it happens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-28-2017, 03:20 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I don't think so. Kentucky as a whole is used to following college ball. I'm not sure the fan bas would switch to a professional team. Sure, people would go to a few games, but I don't think it would develop the following UK and Louisville basketball have. But, that's just my opinion....

Louisville is different than 95% of Kentucky.  Lexington is a decent sized city, but it is a "good old country-boy" city.  Louisville is a little more urban.

Not saying there is anything wrong with "good old country boy" cities, but they don't care much for NBA basketball.  Same with Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and most of the rest of the State here in Tennessee.  They don't love B-ball like Memphis.

(03-28-2017, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Louisville is different than 95% of Kentucky.  Lexington is a decent sized city, but it is a "good old country-boy" city.  Louisville is a little more urban.

Not saying there is anything wrong with "good old country boy" cities, but they don't care much for NBA basketball.  Same with Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and most of the rest of the State here in Tennessee.  They don't love B-ball like Memphis.

To add onto this, Louisville and UK (Moreso UK of course) feed players to the NBA. When those players come into town people will come to see them. And again, Louisville is one of the biggest markets for the super bowl, NBA finals, and just about everything. The city just loves sports in general. If we had a professional team to cheer for, people would get attached quickly. During college bball season attendance might fluctuate early on, but it would stay consistent for both UofL and whatever pro team sooner rather than later.

Plus a pro team can feed off the Kentucky Derby, tons of NCAA tourney games (mens and womens), and an exponentially growing college campus and city. It would make oodles of sense

(03-28-2017, 02:40 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: You're not taking into account that the value of his asset would rise with ownership of a new stadium, there would be no lease payments to be made, and he would have revenue from other events held throughout the year.  As a business owner, he would have the ability to build his stadium anywhere the NFL would allow it (he is actually a franchisee of the league).  NFL teams everywhere have trouble selling out their stadiums, which is why the bulk of their revenue comes from the television contracts. 

I strongly disagree about this team's ability to sell out in other markets.  The organization has put an "above average product" on the field for the last seven years, but as Shake pointed out above you really need to look at the history of this team, specifically Mike Brown, and the relationship with the community.  Very little is done, or has been done, to build bridges.  Then take into account the history of absolute futility that this team owns.  I feel like this team "gets" quite well for what they give.

Owning his own stadium would increase the club's value, but if the league loses years to a strike or the tv bubble bursts, he could find himself upside down on his stadium loan and forced to sell the team, especially with the league instituting minimum spending requirements on player salaries.

The Rams were bottom 4 in the league in attendance for years before they moved to LA, and were 2nd in home attendance last year.  Anybody that doesn't think the Bengals wouldn't sell out or at least see a big attendance increase if they moved is fooling themselves.  2005 is the closest the Bengals have come to even sniffing the top 10 in attendance, and even then, they were in the bottom half of the league at 19th.  In the Dalton era, the highest they've gotten is 23.  It's been proven over and over again with moves and expansion teams that if you bring NFL football to a starved market, you will move tickets and merchandise for a few years whether you put a good team on the field or not.

Plus, we can all gripe about the various reasons we don't want to spend money on the Bengals, but those excuses don't exist in a new market.  If the Bengals moved to San Antonio, the fans there don't care if the team hasn't won a playoff game in forever.  They care about what they do there.  Similarly, they aren't going to complain about retired numbers or a Ring of Honor or whatever for players who never played there.  If they make they playoffs for six of the first eight years, they aren't going to be screaming for Brown to hire a GM because he has 15 years straight of losing seasons he needs to atone for.  They aren't going to be saying he needs to build an indoor practice facility because they probably built him one as part their bid for the team. 

People seriously need to stop looking at the situation from the perspective of how they think things should be and start looking at things as how they actually are.  There's lots of fans in Cleveland, Oakland, St.Louis, and San Diego that did the former.

(03-27-2017, 11:00 PM)eoxyod Wrote: A team would never come to Cincy again if the Bengals left

And you can take that to the bank. It would never happen.

(03-27-2017, 08:13 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: Sounds reasonable to me, but don't worry he won't be around the team that long

Sorry, but how exactly is this reasonable? 

Why should tax payers have to foot the bill for an owners stadium? 

NFL owners have been taking advantage of the general public for far too long. Teams are moving cities because the owners get butt hurt and don't want to pony up money for THEIR stadium when the public votes the stadium tax down. Im honestly glad St. Louis and Oakland voted their stadium tax proposition down. Im glad some of these citizens have the balls to stand up to such greedy owners and the NFL in general. 

The NFL is becoming a joke and society is so twisted these days. How about instead of NFL owners expecting the public to pay for their multi billion dollar stadiums by tax, we offer up a tax that will help out schools or some sort of social service that will improve the cities social or developmental landscape? 

Shit makes me sick. 

(03-27-2017, 08:13 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: Sounds reasonable to me, but don't worry he won't be around the team that long

So. Can we win a playoff game in the next 9 year?

Odds say no

(03-28-2017, 12:41 PM)Whatever Wrote: However, if the league and the owner's are going to pony up their own money for stadiums, then they should be free to move their teams whenever and wherever they please.

There's honestly a lot of hypocrisy from fans about the issue.  The owners should spend their money to build the stadium, but shouldn't be allowed to move their team out of loyalty to the fan base and the community, even if the community doesn't fill the stadium.

Congress is not passing legislation to prevent cities from using tax dollars to build stadiums for professional sports teams, and that's the only way a stop gets put to it.  If Cincinnati won't pony up the money for stadium renovations or a new stadium, another city will.  That's the reality of the situation.  In all honesty, the Brown family is the least able ownership group in the NFL to foot the bill for a stadium. Being honest, why would they foot the bill to build a new stadium in a town that they can't even sell out their current stadium with playoff teams?  If the owners should pay for their stadiums, the Bengals shouldn't be in Cincinnati. If Cincinnati won't pay up, someone else will, whether anybody thinks it's fair or not.

If an owner wants to pony up money to eventually leave, then thats fine. I have no issue with that. 

The issue that me and so many others have is that tax dollars were already spent for PBS. If Mike wants to take the Bengals to a new city because the public isn't willing to pay for a new stadium...then thats crap. 

(03-28-2017, 09:51 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: If an owner wants to pony up money to eventually leave, then thats fine. I have no issue with that. 

The issue that me and so many others have is that tax dollars were already spent for PBS. If Mike wants to take the Bengals to a new city because the public isn't willing to pay for a new stadium...then thats crap. 

PBS is a recent enough structure that when the Bengals lease expires, renovations and upgrades may be enough, but they will need to be made.  Who is going to pay for those?  Brown has already compromised and put millions into stadium upgrades for the new video board and WiFi despite the fact that the lease agreement states that the county is responsible for all stadium upgrades.  However, how much money can he reasonably be expected to put into a building he's renting, but doesn't own?

The fact that he's putting money into the stadium when he doesn't have to seems to indicate that he doesn't want to move and isn't going to stick the taxpayers with the whole bill, so things could potentially be worked out, but you don't want to see it get to the point where Cincinnati is in a bidding war with one or more markets to keep the team.

(03-28-2017, 09:44 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Sorry, but how exactly is this reasonable? 

Why should tax payers have to foot the bill for an owners stadium? 

NFL owners have been taking advantage of the general public for far too long. Teams are moving cities because the owners get butt hurt and don't want to pony up money for THEIR stadium when the public votes the stadium tax down. Im honestly glad St. Louis and Oakland voted their stadium tax proposition down. Im glad some of these citizens have the balls to stand up to such greedy owners and the NFL in general. 

The NFL is becoming a joke and society is so twisted these days. How about instead of NFL owners expecting the public to pay for their multi billion dollar stadiums by tax, we offer up a tax that will help out schools or some sort of social service that will improve the cities social or developmental landscape? 

Shit makes me sick. 

I was referring to the quote in the OP. If they hadn't been able to get a deal done in cincy then they would have had to look elsewhere. Makes sense and seems reasonable to me. What would you prefer he say? If we can't build a stadium in cincy we will close up shop and the NFL can play with 31 teams? 

Remember the lockout of 2011?

Lots of football fans automatically took the owners side just because the players were represented by on of those evil things called a "union".

It was literally a shock to my senses to see so many people who had been complaining about owners for so long suddenly turn and support them over silly politics.  The owners had been putting the screws to the fans every way imaginable for yeras (black out local games, ridiculous price of NFL licensed merchandise, claiming ownership of the stats used by fantasy league players, ridiculous price of concessions and parking, blackmailing fans into paying for stadiums, etc etc), but suddenly the players were the greedy ones and the owners were the beloved "job creators".

(03-28-2017, 10:56 PM)Whatever Wrote: PBS is a recent enough structure that when the Bengals lease expires, renovations and upgrades may be enough, but they will need to be made.  Who is going to pay for those?  Brown has already compromised and put millions into stadium upgrades for the new video board and WiFi despite the fact that the lease agreement states that the county is responsible for all stadium upgrades.  However, how much money can he reasonably be expected to put into a building he's renting, but doesn't own?

The fact that he's putting money into the stadium when he doesn't have to seems to indicate that he doesn't want to move and isn't going to stick the taxpayers with the whole bill, so things could potentially be worked out, but you don't want to see it get to the point where Cincinnati is in a bidding war with one or more markets to keep the team.

I guess. But he spent 2.5 million on a 10 million dollar scoreboard, and 4 million on a 16 million dollar stadium improvement deal. As soon as the county starts running out of money, things could get ugly. 

He would easily become the most hated man in all of the Greater Cincy Metro area if he moved the team after shitting on the loyal fans for over a quarter century.