you can always develop a gambling addiction if you don't feel enough like a European fan

Chicago Fire will be playing at Soldier Field starting next season: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/ct-chicago-fire-soldier-field-20191008-57jrs5qatvgoxhwipathptuq5i-story.html

 

It shows that MLS is still willing to let some teams share stadiums, even when the MLS team doesn't own the facility (as is the case of Atlanta). I know there are differences between our situation and Chicago's (size of market, existing vs expansion team, etc). But I still wish FC Cincinnati, MLS, and UC could have found a way to make Nippert work long term. 

 

 

I'm happy the games will stop at Nippert. It would not have worked without a massive renovation to Nippert. This is a dead horse that opponents to the FCC stadium like to beat. 

Edited October 8, 20195 yr by cincydave8

It's very likely that MLS is doing this on a short term basis to help reinvigorate the brand before moving to a new purpose-built stadium. I don't expect them to stay there for long. I would anticipate this lasts about 5-10 years depending on success and ability to get a new stadium in Chicago proper near public transit. Bridgeview was a terrible location. If the Fire were really good, they could get a crowd. But they would have to be really good. Otherwise, it was unlikely to bring almost anyone. The stadium was in such a horrible location. I went to the FCC game there this summer. 

 

Atlanta United is owned by the same ownership as the Falcons. The NE Revolution is owned by the same ownership as the Patriots (who are rumored to be looking for a long-term Boston location, but not close yet). NYCFC is owned (20%) by the Yankees (and MLS is not happy that they haven't found their own stadium yet). Seattle Seahawks ownership owns much of the stake in the Sounders and they share a lot of front office staff.

 

The only team aside from the Fire who will play in a "rented" or "shared" facility that the ownership doesn't have control over is the Vancouver Whitecaps. MLS was not going to let a smaller city enter the league while renting a facility and having scheduling completely reliant on the Bearcats football schedule. 

As someone who works at a Clifton sports bar, I can attest that FC's impact on business faded considerably with the jump to MLS and the subsequent terribleness of the team.  Last week, we had over 700 orders and $23,000 in gross sales for Bearcats football, or almost double what we had during FC's weekend games during the second half of the season.  

 

MLS isn't a big deal.  FC Cincinnati isn't a big deal.  The Bearcats, who don't play in a major conference, and field unpaid athletes, are a way bigger deal.  

5 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

As someone who works at a Clifton sports bar, I can attest that FC's impact on business faded considerably with the jump to MLS and the subsequent terribleness of the team.  Last week, we had over 700 orders and $23,000 in gross sales for Bearcats football, or almost double what we had during FC's weekend games during the second half of the season.  

 

MLS isn't a big deal.  FC Cincinnati isn't a big deal.  The Bearcats, who don't play in a major conference, and field unpaid athletes, are a way bigger deal.  

Completely Disagree. FC Cincinnati is a big deal. And MLS is going to be a big deal which is why Billionaires are dropping 500 Million Dollars+ on expansion fees and new stadiums. But just like the banks music venue I’m glad the debate is now over It’s too draining, Cincinnati has a MLS team and soon will have a gorgeous stadium and that’s that.

12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

As someone who works at a Clifton sports bar, I can attest that FC's impact on business faded considerably with the jump to MLS and the subsequent terribleness of the team.  Last week, we had over 700 orders and $23,000 in gross sales for Bearcats football, or almost double what we had during FC's weekend games during the second half of the season.  

 

MLS isn't a big deal.  FC Cincinnati isn't a big deal.  The Bearcats, who don't play in a major conference, and field unpaid athletes, are a way bigger deal.  

 

Another perfect post for the "Jake Complains About Soccer Thread" that needs to be started. 

Just now, 646empire said:

Completely Disagree. FC Cincinnati is a big deal. And MLS is going to be a big deal which is why Billionaires are dropping 500 Million Dollars+ on expansion fees and new stadiums. But just like the banks music venue I’m glad the debate is now over It’s too draining, Cincinnati has a MLS team and soon will have a gorgeous stadium and that’s that.

 

Compared to every other sport in Cincinnati, FCC is not a big deal. It's a new exciting thing right now, and a nice change of pace since every other team sucks (except UC football by the looks of things), but is still no where close to the Bengals, Reds, or UC football. If they do not become competitive and end up following along the path of a team like Orlando City, attendance and overall interest will drop very quickly. 

 

13 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

As someone who works at a Clifton sports bar, I can attest that FC's impact on business faded considerably with the jump to MLS and the subsequent terribleness of the team.  Last week, we had over 700 orders and $23,000 in gross sales for Bearcats football, or almost double what we had during FC's weekend games during the second half of the season.  

 

MLS isn't a big deal.  FC Cincinnati isn't a big deal.  The Bearcats, who don't play in a major conference, and field unpaid athletes, are a way bigger deal.  

 

The demographics for a college football game compared to an MLS game are drastically different. That alone would result in a huge fluctuation in business at a nearby sports bar. For example, how many suburban families are driving to Nippert for a UC football game compared to a FCC game? 

Shocked that UC's biggest home game of the year with a 4-1 record against the best team in the conference (who was ranked) on national television has bigger bar sales than FC Cincinnati at the end of a historically bad season when they are mathematically out of contention. Shocked.

47 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

I'm happy the games will stop at Nippert. It would not have worked without a massive renovation to Nippert. This is a dead horse that opponents to the FCC stadium like to beat. 

FWIW - I've been a season ticket holder since the inaugural season. I live in OTR and so I'm excited that I'll be able to walk to games when they play in the West End. All that being said: I still would have preferred the money go towards improving Nippert and/or building out a more competitive roster. 

The last two years UC has averaged 30,519/game and 28,434/game.  That is for 6 home games each season, so about 180,000 people per season.  FCC just averaged 27,336/game for 17 games, a total of 464,720 people per season.  In no way is UC football a "bigger business" then FCC.  

29 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Shocked that UC's biggest home game of the year with a 4-1 record against the best team in the conference (who was ranked) on national television has bigger bar sales than FC Cincinnati at the end of a historically bad season when they are mathematically out of contention. Shocked.

 

It was also on a Friday night. Indeed, shocking!

 

After FCC's final home match, I went to Adriatico's and there was a line to get a table. It was still that way at 9 PM when I left. On a Sunday!  

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Compared to every other sport in Cincinnati, FCC is not a big deal. It's a new exciting thing right now, and a nice change of pace since every other team sucks (except UC football by the looks of things), but is still no where close to the Bengals, Reds, or UC football. If they do not become competitive and end up following along the path of a team like Orlando City, attendance and overall interest will drop very quickly. 

 

 

The demographics for a college football game compared to an MLS game are drastically different. That alone would result in a huge fluctuation in business at a nearby sports bar. For example, how many suburban families are driving to Nippert for a UC football game compared to a FCC game? 

 

That’s the point. Your comparing a brand new MLS team to established MLB and NFL teams , Its apples and oranges. Have you seen Paul Brown Stadium lately it’s been half empty and it looks horrible on television. My point is it doesn’t matter what league your in if your team is consistently bad attendance suffers.

Edited October 8, 20195 yr by 646empire

Bengals are selling out 73.8% of capacity, by far the lowest in the league. There are two teams in the 80s (Tampa Bay, 84.6; JAX 87.5) and everyone else is in the 90+s. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

Compared to every other sport in Cincinnati, FCC is not a big deal. It's a new exciting thing right now, and a nice change of pace since every other team sucks (except UC football by the looks of things), but is still no where close to the Bengals, Reds, or UC football. If they do not become competitive and end up following along the path of a team like Orlando City, attendance and overall interest will drop very quickly.

 

Agreed - especially as ticket prices go up with the move to MLS and the new stadium. If they are terrible again for the next few years the new stadium will quickly start to look like PBS did on Sunday. This will be especially true if the Reds continue to improve. Reds games are great, easy events for families and even though there are those groups of guys who "wooo," they aren't quite as disruptive as the soccer hooligans at FC games.

6 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

Agreed - especially as ticket prices go up with the move to MLS and the new stadium. If they are terrible again for the next few years the new stadium will quickly start to look like PBS did on Sunday. This will be especially true if the Reds continue to improve. Reds games are great, easy events for families and even though there are those groups of guys who "wooo," they aren't quite as disruptive as the soccer hooligans at FC games.

When teams win people show up. When teams don’t win people stay home period. For ALL leagues.

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

If they do not become competitive and end up following along the path of a team like Orlando City, attendance and overall interest will drop very quickly. 

 

Orlando is still at 90% capacity for home games, and they've never made the playoffs in their five year history, despite a majority of teams in the league making the playoffs. They are following a similar trend to FCC where they played 2 seasons in an existing stadium, and then moved to a smaller stadium that they control. Their attendance has declined since their first season in the new stadium, but 90% of capacity is still good.

Friday's UC-UCF game had 1.4 million viewers:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

 

A typical MLS game has about 250,000 viewers.  Last year's MLS Cup Final had 1.8 million viewers.  

3 hours ago, jwulsin said:

Chicago Fire will be playing at Soldier Field starting next season: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/ct-chicago-fire-soldier-field-20191008-57jrs5qatvgoxhwipathptuq5i-story.html

 

It shows that MLS is still willing to let some teams share stadiums, even when the MLS team doesn't own the facility (as is the case of Atlanta). I know there are differences between our situation and Chicago's (size of market, existing vs expansion team, etc). But I still wish FC Cincinnati, MLS, and UC could have found a way to make Nippert work long term. 

 

 

 

MLS "needing" its own stadium is about owners gaining control of real estate with public dollars.  We just watched it happen here in Cincinnati.  FC Cincinnati got tons of free land plus they're going to control surrounding development. 

 

The Atlanta Braves recently vacated perfectly-fine Turner Field for a suburban zone that they completely control.  

 

 

 

Also, I think MLS is starting to see the benefits of a stadium in the urban core. Mapre was nice until is wasn't. Having people walk from bars to the game is much more of a soccer thing. Toyota Field catered more to suburban parkers and tailgate crowd (which did not seem too popular in soccer) than an urban venue.

29 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Also, I think MLS is starting to see the benefits of a stadium in the urban core. Mapre was nice until is wasn't. Having people walk from bars to the game is much more of a soccer thing. Toyota Field catered more to suburban parkers and tailgate crowd (which did not seem too popular in soccer) than an urban venue.

 

Tailgating is a football invention because the stadiums are gigantic.  Many college stadiums hold more people than NFL stadium have terrible access to major roads and fans must park a decent distance away from the games.  Getting to an NFL game isn't much easier, even when a stadium is located right next to expressways like ours.  

re: sports bars and soccer. I don't know if 2000s-style sports bars with Jack Lambert on the wall -- where guys got off work then raced over there to catch PTI during Happy Hour or headed over later at night for a nightcap and to see if the Yankees won like it's 2004 -- are the kinds of places soccer folk hang. They seem more like a taproom gang.

15 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Orlando is still at 90% capacity for home games, and they've never made the playoffs in their five year history, despite a majority of teams in the league making the playoffs. They are following a similar trend to FCC where they played 2 seasons in an existing stadium, and then moved to a smaller stadium that they control. Their attendance has declined since their first season in the new stadium, but 90% of capacity is still good.

 

That's their announced attendance. Their actual attendance is much lower if you've watched any of their games. They have been hemorrhaging season ticket holders for the last few years, and next year will likely see a steep decline.   Each of the last three seasons they have lowered their average by ~1.5k, and their rate of decline has been increasing each year.

16 hours ago, 646empire said:

 

That’s the point. Your comparing a brand new MLS team to established MLB and NFL teams , Its apples and oranges. Have you seen Paul Brown Stadium lately it’s been half empty and it looks horrible on television. My point is it doesn’t matter what league your in if your team is consistently bad attendance suffers.

 

You were arguing that FCC is a "big deal" in Cincinnati when, in fact, it is not. 

 

FCC has a very long way to go before they are a big deal. The Bengals might be the worst team in the league this year, they have been horrible for the last three years, and haven't won a playoff game since 1990. They still manage to convince 40-50k people to show up to PBS 8 times a year. The Reds have been bad for 20 years, and haven't won a playoff series since 1995, yet they still manage to convince 20-25k poor souls to make their way down to GABP 81 times a year. If FCC strings together a few more seasons even half as bad as this year, they will struggle to get 18k people to show up. 

 

 

50 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

They still manage to convince 40-50k people to show up to PBS 8 times a year. The Reds have been bad for 20 years, and haven't won a playoff series since 1995, yet they still manage to convince 20-25k poor souls to make their way down to GABP 81 times a year. If FCC strings together a few more seasons even half as bad as this year, they will struggle to get 18k people to show up. 

 

That's their announced attendance. Their actual attendance is much lower if you've watched any of their games. They have been hemorrhaging season ticket holders for the last few years, and next year will likely see a steep decline.

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

 

That's their announced attendance. Their actual attendance is much lower if you've watched any of their games. They have been hemorrhaging season ticket holders for the last few years, and next year will likely see a steep decline.

 

Very mature. 

 

My point still stands though. The Bengals have been awful for nearly three straight decades and are still a MUCH bigger deal in the Cincinnati metro area in terms of attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, etc. If you think FCC is on the same level, you are delusional.

1 minute ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Very mature. 

 

My point still stands though. The Bengals have been awful for nearly three straight decades and are still a MUCH bigger deal in the Cincinnati metro area in terms of attendance, TV ratings, merchandise sales, etc. If you think FCC is on the same level, you are delusional.

 

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never said FCC has higher TV ratings, attendance, or merchandise sales. The Bengals are more well known and watched than FCC. 

5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never said FCC has higher TV ratings, attendance, or merchandise sales. The Bengals are more well known and watched than FCC. 

 

Yes, I did have you confused with someone else. I apologize. Probably because you quoted a comment of mine to someone else totally unrelated to the your point I previously addressed. 

 

In your snarky attempt to prove me wrong by quoting me in an unrelated response, you actually proved my point I was originally making to you. Orlando City has been very bad the whole time they've been in MLS, and have constantly been sliding downward in season ticket numbers, announced attendance, and actual attendance. Similarly, the Reds and Bengals have both been experiencing the same issue, though they are further along the path of extended periods of failure on the field. 

Just now, cbussoccer said:

In your snarky attempt to prove me wrong by quoting me in an unrelated response, you actually proved my point

 

If anyone knows about poor attendance, it's the Columbus Crew fan. ?

Just now, Gordon Bombay said:

 

If anyone knows about poor attendance, it's the Columbus Crew fan. ?

 

What exactly does that have to do with the topic being discussed? At least make an attempt to add something intelligent to the conversation.

 

 

1 minute ago, cbussoccer said:

At least make an attempt to add something intelligent to the conversation.

You're arguing over the semantics of what the term "big deal" encompasses/means. I don't think intelligent conversation is what's happening here at this moment. 

3 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Probably because you quoted a comment of mine to someone else totally unrelated to the your point I previously addressed. 

 

I quoted you because when I used attendance to show that even though the on-field performance has hurt Orlando City's attendance, they still overall have good attendance, you claimed it was just announced and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

Then with another poster you used announced attendance for other teams to prove the opposite point (that people still go to Reds and Bengals games). Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your stances. Announced attendance shouldn't be taken seriously for the slow decline in Orlando City's attendance, but your examples of "strong" attendance despite failure by the Bengals and Reds relies on the exact same numbers.

 

Announced attendance either matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Just now, ryanlammi said:

 

I quoted you because when I used attendance to show that even though the on-field performance has hurt Orlando City's attendance, they still overall have good attendance, you claimed it was just announced and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

Then with another poster you used announced attendance for other teams to prove the opposite point (that people still go to Reds and Bengals games). Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your stances. Announced attendance shouldn't be taken seriously for the slow decline in Orlando City's attendance, but your examples of "strong" attendance despite failure by the Bengals and Reds relies on the exact same numbers.

 

Announced attendance either matters or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

I didn't say announced attendance doesn't matter. I pointed out that there is more to the story than announced attendance. Try the words I actually type rather than formulating an imaginary argument I made and then "disproving" that imaginary argument. 

Ok. This back-and-forth is getting tiresome. 

3 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I didn't say announced attendance doesn't matter. I pointed out that there is more to the story than announced attendance. Try the words I actually type rather than formulating an imaginary argument I made and then "disproving" that imaginary argument. 

 

You dispute the validity of using announced attendance to signify good attendance at Orlando. Then you use announced attendance to signify the strength of Reds and Bengals hold on the market. You can't have it both ways. I'm not misconstruing your words at all. Sorry.

2 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

You're arguing over the semantics of what the term "big deal" encompasses/means. I don't think intelligent conversation is what's happening here at this moment. 

Exactly!! Which is why I stopped responding to “cbussoccer”. As an example I would say UC and Xavier basketball is a huge deal in cincy but according to “cbussoccer” I guess not because they don’t get 40k people like the bengals or reds. One more thing the reds have not been bad for the last 20 years LOL I managed a restaurant at the banks back in 2013ish when they where rocking and was in the playoffs before losing 2 straight to the giants (the eventual champs) 

In more on-topic news:

 

 

Lol at cbussoccer downvoting posts that are proving his arguments are flawed.  

Club announces roster decisions for 2020 season

 

Quote

The 2019 players who have had decisions announced fall into one of four categories for the 2020 roster:

 

• Guaranteed contracts for 2020 (already under contract next year)
• Out of contract
• Contract option executed for 2020
• Contract option declined for 2020

 

“It is never easy to make decisions that affect your players personally at the end of the season,” General Manager Gerard Nijkamp said. “We had to take an evaluative approach after this season and really look hard at who we believe will fit into our system going forward. There were some very tough decisions to be made, but ultimately our goal is put an improved product on the field in 2020.

“We have a lot of guaranteed contracts next year, so that factored into our decision-making process. As the offseason continues, there will be additional changes and additions. There are a couple of players we are in continued discussions with about their futures at FC Cincinnati, and we know those decisions will also have an impact on our 2020 roster,” Nijkamp said.

 

The club’s current roster decisions for 2020 are as follows:

 

• A total of 16 players have guaranteed contracts for the 2020 season: F Fanendo Adi, M Fatai Alashe, M Frankie Amaya, M Leonardo Bertone, M Allan Cruz, D Mathieu Deplagne, D Greg Garza, D Andrew Gutman, M Joseph-Claude Gyau, F Kekuta Manneh, F Darren Mattocks, D Alvas Powell, M Caleb Stanko, GK Przemysław Tytoń, D Maikel van der Werff, D Kendall Waston.
• Two players are out of contract in 2020: M Nazmi Albadawi and M Victor Ulloa.
• FC Cincinnati will execute the 2020 contract options for at least six players: F Rashawn Dally, D Nick Hagglund, GK Jimmy Hague, GK Ben Lundt, M Tommy McCabe and GK Spencer Richey.
• Finally, FCC will decline the 2020 contract options on at least five players: M Corben Bone, D Justin Hoyte, M Roland Lamah, M Emmanuel Ledesma* and M Jimmy McLaughlin*.

 

* The club is in current negotiations and discussions with Ledesma and McLaughlin about their futures with FC Cincinnati.

 

FC Cincinnati opens $35M training center

 

 

FC Cincinnati unveiled its $35 million Mercy Health Training Center in Milford on Wednesday morning.

 

The event featured top FC Cincinnati officials as well as Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber.

 

The club has been practicing at the 24-acre facility all season, but the 30,000-square-foot building housing its locker rooms and training facilities is just opening now.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/11/06/fc-cincinnati-opens-35m-training-center-photos.html

On 10/8/2019 at 4:45 PM, thomasbw said:

Bengals are selling out 73.8% of capacity, by far the lowest in the league. There are two teams in the 80s (Tampa Bay, 84.6; JAX 87.5) and everyone else is in the 90+s. 

 

Not to float wild conspiracy theories, but I have to here given how many Cincinnatians are giving the Bengals the middle finger this year... (that and my current avatar is a guy with a boot on his head, so wild conspiracies are bound to happen).

 

The Bengals' agreement is up in, what, 2026? 

I see the market for MLS continuing to grow and the market for the NFL continuing to shrink while the league keeps exploring things like teams in London.

Is there a possibility that FC Cincy can pull off Atlanta-style attendance in a renovated PBS if the Bengals were to leave town?

And if that happens, what would happen to FC Cincy's new stadium if they jumped ship to PBS? 

FCC won't move to PBS. There's no chance of that. They wouldn't get the attendance, it's a terrible environment for soccer, and it would require significant upgrades to the stadium to accommodate soccer. After building their own stadium, they aren't just going to leave it for a stadium they don't control, and one with none of the amenities they are building in the West End Stadium.

 

Also, I would be absolutely shocked if the Bengals leave in 2026. They have a sweetheart deal that they can unilaterally extend into 2036 using two 5-year options (or is it five 2-year options?). I don't see them leaving in 2026. Mike Brown is too cheap to leave before the lease is up. I'm sure negotiations with the city/county and with other metros will begin before 2026, but I think the odds of the Bengals playing at PBS in 2027 is very high.

The NFL is not in decline and The Bengals are not going to leave.   Part of the motivation for the so-called transit 2020 sales tax is so the county will have the ability to drop the .5% sales tax that is retiring stadium construction bonds but finance renovations to Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark with the .2%

 

The NFL is the biggest thing on the planet, by far.  More people watch Bengals games on TV than watch every MLS game, combined, on a particular game day. 

 

On 11/6/2019 at 9:56 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 Part of the motivation for the so-called transit 2020 sales tax is so the county will have the ability to drop the .5% sales tax that is retiring stadium construction bonds but finance renovations to Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark with the .2%

 

 

 

There's absolutely no basis for this statement 

Just now, thomasbw said:

There's absolutely no basis for this statement 

 

Where else is the money going to come from?  Opponents will endlessly harass sitting commissioners who refuse to sunset the stadium sales tax.  

30 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Where else is the money going to come from?  Opponents will endlessly harass sitting commissioners who refuse to sunset the stadium sales tax.  

The money is coming from the Chamber and large employers. They care about the earnings tax because, but they don't care nearly as much about sales taxes.

20 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

The money is coming from the Chamber and large employers. They care about the earnings tax because, but they don't care nearly as much about sales taxes.

 

The renovations necessary for a new 30-year Bengals lease will cost hundreds of millions - likely somewhere between $250 and $500 million.  Renovations to Great American Ballpark will likely also cost several hundred million.  The total cost to renovate both facilities in the 2030s will likely total more than $500 million.  

 

The not-sunsetted Union Terminal tax + "infrastructure" = .45%.  Those combined taxes could pay off $500 million in new construction bonds, but with little room for much else.  The .5% stadium sales tax could be retired in 2033~ or whenever the last GABP construction bonds are paid off.  

 

However, we're probably going to see Karl's Jr. come after some of the "infrastructure" tax for the soccer stadium, plus the convention center might come calling.  So things might get really messy really soon.  

 

On 11/6/2019 at 9:56 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 Part of the motivation for the so-called transit 2020 sales tax is so the county will have the ability to drop the .5% sales tax that is retiring stadium construction bonds but finance renovations to Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark with the .2%

 

The laws allowing for the 0.2% of the transit tax to go to infrastructure restrict the money so it's only allowed to be spent on roads and bridges as specified under Ohio law. This transit tax has nothing to do with the stadiums, and your conspiracy theories are absurd. At least do your research before you spread this nonsense.

 

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/306.353v1

 

As for the 0.25% being carried over from Union Terminal for county needs, it's possible that could be used for future stadium funding since it will basically just go into the general fund from my understanding. It would be up to the county commissioners to decide.

^The county currently budgets about $35 million for roadwork and over $10 million for debt (much of that Banks parking garage debt).  The SORTA "infrastructure" tax will allow the county and city to shift some routine expenses to SORTA, freeing up funds for who-knows-what (I certainly have a few good guesses) in in their general and restricted budgets.

 

So by freeing up money in the general budget, the "infrastructure" tax becomes a back-door way for the county to pay for stadium renovations as renegotiation of the Bengals lease approach along with political pressure to sunset the 1996 sales tax. 

This thread is going way off topic