03-28-2017, 02:40 PM
(03-28-2017, 02:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: The franchise is worth $1.6 billion and a new stadium will be a minimum of $700 million, almost half of the team's value. On top of that, think about how much interest he would pay on that $700 million dollar loan over 20 years or so. He could probably do it if he had to, but it would greatly hurt the team's profitability.
But that leads to the next question. If he's paying for the stadium, why would he build it in Cincinnati? He'd be an idiot to do so. With the current regime, he typically puts an above average product on the field, has the 3rd lowest ticket price and cheapest stadium experience in the league, and still can't fill the current stadium. Not only would he likely sell out in a new market, he could also raise ticket prices and make more than in Cincinnati.
The reality of it is, building stadiums is the small market's way of making up for lost revenue compared to large ones.
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.
