(Yesterday, 10:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And Bengal's fans used to be Browns fans.

SA is 200 miles away from Dallas. Imma go out on a limb and say enough people in a Metro area about twice the size of Cincy would start to support their home team. 


It's silly and Imma drop out. You guys roll with The Bengals have no other Options. 

(Yesterday, 10:28 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: the cowboys are a sacred nfl team that prints money hand over fist just to remind you. I dont think they want to stop that

(Yesterday, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure the rest of the NFL's owners' motivation is to ensure Dallas stays the most lucrative franchise in the league. 

(Yesterday, 10:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And Bengal's fans used to be Browns fans.

SA is 200 miles away from Dallas. Imma go out on a limb and say enough people in a Metro area about twice the size of Cincy would start to support their home team. 


It's silly and Imma drop out. You guys roll with The Bengals have no other Options. 

(Yesterday, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They sure do, and with revenue sharing, I assume they'd prefer to see an NFL team in a large market like San Antonio rather than a small market like Cincy. 

(Yesterday, 10:06 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: theyre all cowboys fans in san antonio

(Yesterday, 10:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And Bengal's fans used to be Browns fans.

SA is 200 miles away from Dallas. Imma go out on a limb and say enough people in a Metro area about twice the size of Cincy would start to support their home team. 

It's silly and Imma drop out. You guys roll with The Bengals have no other Options. 

(Yesterday, 10:28 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: the cowboys are a sacred nfl team that prints money hand over fist just to remind you. I dont think they want to stop that

(Yesterday, 10:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure the rest of the NFL's owners' motivation is to ensure Dallas stays the most lucrative franchise in the league. 

(Yesterday, 10:41 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: why disrupt a cash cow?

Quote: A recent literature review surveyed the past 50 years of stadium construction. The authors found that the promised tangible economic benefits—economic growth, income growth, wage growth, employment growth, and higher tax revenues—do not occur the way that sports teams claim. Often, the only economic benefits occur near the stadium—and fall far short of expectations. State and city governments are subsidizing development within a single neighborhood, with no tangible benefits for the rest of the city or state.

(Yesterday, 06:18 PM)spazz70 Wrote: You all know that she meant that they could move to like Northern Kentucky or north to the West Chester area...not a complete move out of state. They are not going to move from the greater Cincy area.

(Today, 12:24 AM)XsandOs Wrote: I'm sure LA is now profitable with their SB appearance and win.

(Today, 12:24 AM)XsandOs Wrote: this is not a story..I feel certain things will work out between the Brown family and the county/city..But ..if Katie took the team elsewhere, they would be welcomed with open arms..they would be given any facility they wanted .. ..they would make a ton of money..end of story..


fine, I am not saying Bengals have no other options. There are multiple potential options. But are they viable, and ultimately better than Cincy?

Since the discussion is brought to a singular location (Austin/San Antonio), I'll play along. There are hurdles for the Bengals. Relocation fee, building a local fan base, competing with Dallas and now Houston.

Dallas draws from Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico and dominates 85% of Texas. Houston draws from SE Texas. Bengals would be in lower South Texas and water locked below (Mexico does not count).  

Bengals could win a SB, convert Cowboy fans and become profitable. They could afford the half billion dollar relocation fee. They could get a 100% publicly funded stadium deal in Austin/SA. The operative term is "could". 

But the real question is how many years would it take for them to become profitable after the move? Do the Browns have the pockets to withstand that? Do they have the capacity to pay for at least 25% of a $2B+ stadium that would generate the revenue they would want? Would they be willing to borrow from private investors to pay for their part of the new Stadium?

It took the Ravens 5 years after relocating to become profitable. But it was after they won their first SB and they did not have to pay a relocation fee. I don't know the situation with LA and SD. I'm sure LA is now profitable with their SB appearance and win.

And lastly; Bengals have established fan base in Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. They are profitable, as much as Bengals use the small market excuse. They make money win or lose. 

So why move? Juxtaposition for more State and City money makes sense. A relocation does not - to me.

(4 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I would bet they aren't yet.

Remember they spent $5.5b on their stadium that opened 5 years ago and it's first year of use was 2020 where the Rams had a whopping 28,127 for their season attendance total.

Give it a couple more years of Rams seasons, plus World Cup games, plus Summer Olympics and it probably will be then (so by the end of 2028 is my guess).

(4 hours ago)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: If the Bengals are going to relocate, I suggest looking at all the wonderful real estate between Cincinnati and Dayton. Interstate 75 access would be a bonus. Forget about San Diego, San Antonio, or St. Louis.

(3 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Rams are the 3rd most valuable  sports franchise in the world

(3 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because they own a $5.5b stadium. Look at the list of the most valuable teams, and they own the stadium they're in.

Valuation is not the same thing as profitability though. If you have a $5.5b expense, it'll take awhile before you pay off that debt. 

Simplified example... You open up a small business. You have $50k, you get a loan for another $200k and you put it all towards a building and equipment. You now have a business that's worth $250k. Next door there's a smaller business that has a building and equipment worth only $100k, but they have no debts because they've been operating for a long time now and have already paid it all off and made back their initial stake. On the first day you pull in $1k and the smaller business pulls in $500. You are not profitable yet, because you spent $250k that you haven't made back yet and still need another $249k. They ARE profitable because they already made back their initial investments and paid off their debts and the $500 is pure profit despite being less than what you brought in.

(3 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: IKEA FIELD...sorta like that name

(3 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: Kroenke I can assure you is not even thinking along the lines of profitability or the challenging years years following a start up....but I fully understand what you are saying.....His purchase  of the team for 775 million..moving to LA and So Fi Stadium has made him an even more wealthier man than he was when he purchased the team..Startup cost is incidental to him..Regardless..this non story about the Bengals maybe moving is just that.. fiction .....The plans we were shown a few months back..were reasonable..it is time for some Paycor upgrades and indoor training facility..compared to other cities and their owners demands ..reasonable and responsible...But..and again I doubt this is even being considered by Katie and her family..if they did move ..there are many cities that would welcome them with open arms and provide them tremendous incentives and facilities and the value of the franchise would continue to grow appreciably..My only sports concerns at this time are our Reds and their lack of hitting and the upcoming draft..we need a guard, DL and linebacker..Have a great day

(3 hours ago)ERIC1 Wrote: IKEA FIELD...sorta like that name

(04-03-2025, 12:39 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: “We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year if we didn’t pick the option up,” Blackburn said. “We’ll see. Like I said, all these things will be done in due course. We are having discussions, and so we’re hopeful that the county is thinking about it a lot, too, and wants to get it addressed in a way that would be beneficial to both of us.”

——————

Is this a Cold War type of front Katie is putting up?  On one hand, tax payers have committed a lot to the Bengals.  On the other hand, I’d imagine another city (St. Louis?) would HAPPILY welcome the current iteration of the Bengals and the revenue it brings to the city.  

You gotta say this about Katie, she handles everything in about the same manner.