Yesterday, 09:46 AM
(Yesterday, 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.
