Lol agreed.  It was a big deal and they're reporting on it.  Glad to see them focusing on something positive rather than streetcar bashing etc.

 

 

There were over 32K fans at Nippert that Day. The game was televised on ESPN, a national stage, and the game itself was a miracle and was a nail biter to say the least. You essentially had the Louisville Bats defeat the Chicago Cubs in a 1 game playoff. Not to even mention the fact that Chicago has one of the most legendary soccer players of our generation in Shweinsteiger who was the main cog who helped Germany secure the World Cup in 2014.

 

 

 

 

32,000 fans at a soccer game versus a baseball or football game aren't close to the same thing.  The gate revenue is huge thanks to club seats and luxury boxes and the TV contracts are huge. 

 

For some perspective on how big "major league" soccer is compared to football, baseball, basketball, and hockey, take a look at this list.  It only has 1/6th the revenue of hockey, the fourth-biggest professional sport in the United States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

 

In addition, NASCAR has about $3 billion in annual revenue (about the same as hockey, or 6X major league soccer).  WWE professional wrestling has about $800 million in annual revenue, so it is still significantly bigger than MLS. 

 

 

 

 

I ran across a physical copy of The Enquirer on Friday and saw that they ran an FC Cincinnati cover story and inside they had Paul Daugherty write a separate story.  What's interesting about this is that The Enquirer paid Karl Lindner $10 million back in 1999 and promised to never negatively report on Chiquita or any o his other businesses.  You've got to wonder how much Lindner's boys are twisting the paper's elbows and how much of it is a slow news week.  Also, the paper might think it's going to attract a younger and broader audience.

Enquirer put 75% of their office space on the sublease market. PDoc brings in about 40% of the online traffic.

Other websites seem to be much active with soccer traffic. I remember the law suit against the Enquirer back then. One of their employees hacked into the voicemail system at Chiquita. Enquirer seems kinda dead.

 

 

There were over 32K fans at Nippert that Day. The game was televised on ESPN, a national stage, and the game itself was a miracle and was a nail biter to say the least. You essentially had the Louisville Bats defeat the Chicago Cubs in a 1 game playoff. Not to even mention the fact that Chicago has one of the most legendary soccer players of our generation in Shweinsteiger who was the main cog who helped Germany secure the World Cup in 2014.

 

 

 

 

32,000 fans at a soccer game versus a baseball or football game aren't close to the same thing.  The gate revenue is huge thanks to club seats and luxury boxes and the TV contracts are huge. 

 

For some perspective on how big "major league" soccer is compared to football, baseball, basketball, and hockey, take a look at this list.  It only has 1/6th the revenue of hockey, the fourth-biggest professional sport in the United States:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

 

In addition, NASCAR has about $3 billion in annual revenue (about the same as hockey, or 6X major league soccer).  WWE professional wrestling has about $800 million in annual revenue, so it is still significantly bigger than MLS.

 

Why we are even discussing about revenue?

 

Who cares? I'm talking about the fact that there were 32K fans all screaming in unison for there home team. Why are we even comparing revenue now? That wasn't my point, but rather about the buzz that is being created because of this team. 

All I can say is that after attending some FC games, a Reds game is a big letdown.  I did both in one week and there is no comparison. 

 

Soccer like this... in-person is a fantastic fan experience.  And this is coming from someone who has never in his life watched a soccer game on TV and who really likes baseball.

FC Cincinnati to host U.S. Women's National Team match

Club will sponsor girls development academy

 

CINCINNATI - FC Cincinnati will host hometown soccer star Rose Lavelle and the U.S. Women’s National Team in an international friendly against New Zealand on Sept 19.

 

The match will be at 7:30 p.m. at Nippert Stadium, FC Cincinnati announced at a Friday morning news conference attended by Lavelle, a 2013 Mount Notre Dame grad.

 

Tickets will go on sale July 21 at 10 a.m. only through ussoccer.com and by calling 1-800-745-3000. Tickets will be sold at Nippert Stadium on the day of the match only.

 

Cont

I'm surprised that the NW corner of MLK and Reading wasn't considered for a potential stadium site. We have a brand new interchange at MLK that can get cars quickly to and from the stadium, and virtually every arterial street in the area was widened as well. For all the people who pregame at Mecklenburg Gardens, it would be a shorter walk to the new stadium than the current walk to Nippert Stadium. It would still be convenient for UC students and easily accessible via bus.

 

Well, now we know why... that site will be the location of the new NIOSH lab.

MLS needs to accept Nippert, Portune says

 

Todd Portune is calling the shots on whether Futbol Club Cincinnati gets a new stadium in Hamilton County, and the commissioner doesn't sound like he's budging on giving the club public money.

 

But Portune does want FC Cincinnati to join Major League Soccer. So he's asked the University of Cincinnati to partner with Hamilton County on approaching MLS to see if the league will allow the Queen City club to play permanently at Nippert Stadium.

 

"MLS, you tell us why it doesn't work," Portune told Politics Extra on Thursday night. "You saw the same thing we did two Wednesdays ago. You're telling me you don't want that?"

 

Cont

The quarter final match of the US Open Cup was postponed due to weather in Miami. If FCC beats Miami at the TBD makeup date, we will host the New York Red Bulls in the semifinals.

 

If we win that match, we will either travel to Kansas City, or we will host San Jose at Nippert Stadium for the US Open Cup Final.

As part of the Open Cup, the New England Revolution played New York Red Bulls last night... and for some reason, the match was played at a tiny (4,100 seat) field on Harvard's campus... and it doesn't look like they even filled the bleachers. Not sure why their ownership groups allowed this to happen... definitely doesn't look good for either club or the MLS.

 

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017/07/13/new-england-revolution-vs-new-york-red-bulls-u-s-open-cup-quarterfinals

 

 

Some insight on reddit by u/mattkaybe.

 

It's been said on here multiple times, but I'll say it again: Nippert (or PBS, or "insert your own non-soccer stadium solution here") does not work as a long-term home for an MLS team. Even if MLS were to magically rescind their demand that all bids come with a soccer-specific stadium -- which they will not do (and, if they did, cities like San Diego & St. Louis would vault to the top of the list) -- the economics of soccer in the US simply don't work in a non-team controlled building.

 

The first thing you have to understand about MLS is that it simply isn't as popular, nationally, as any of the other major sports. When you talk about economics in the NFL or the NBA, the leagues make billions of dollars in revenue on their TV deals alone. That money is divided up evenly among the teams . Each NFL team makes roughly $225 million dollars before ticket one or jersey one is sold. Under the NBA's deal, each team makes roughly $100 million dollars from the national TV deal alone (they each get to ink their own local deal on top of this) before any tickets are sold. MLS? Their last TV deal went for $90 million -- which means each team makes roughly $4 million (plus whatever they negotiate locally for a local TV rights deal, but these deals are incredibly small compared to other sports).

 

What does that mean? It means that MLS is more reliant on outside revenue streams, beyond TV, than any other major American sport. An MLS team can't behave like the Cincinnati Bengals, which can cash a huge TV check every year to cover all player expenses and still have tens of millions left over for other expenses.

 

It's also worth noting, at this point, that the likelihood of MLS ever "cashing in" with a huge NBA/NFL/MLB national TV deal of their own is incredibly remote. The business model of televised sports (especially cable televised sports) is currently dying. Networks like ESPN, TNT, and Fox Sports paid billions of dollars in rights fees for these sports to, in part, justify large per-household subscriber fees for their channels on cable and satellite. That was great when everyone was signing up for Time Warner or DirecTV, but people now have alternatives for entertainment that don't require a cable subscription -- and the cable industry is hemmorhaging subscribers daily. ESPN can't afford to hand out more billion dollar agreements because it's primary source of revenue -- the approximately $10 per month every person with cable pays for ESPN (regardless of whether or not they watch a single minute of ESPN) -- is drying up. MLS is a growing league, but it missed the window for getting a huge payday in the sports rights fee arms race.

 

And, unfortunately, running an MLS team isn't exactly cheap. Moving from USL to MLS will mean an escalation in player costs: the MLS salary cap is currently $3.9 million. Not so bad, right? Well, the $3.9 million doesn't count "Designated Players" under MLS's salary structure. If you don't follow MLS, a DP is basically a player that can be paid an amount in excess of what would normally put a team over the salary cap. These are the "superstars" on your MLS team that get brought in from overseas or command large contracts to prevent them from going overseas, and each team gets to have 3 of them on their roster. Our friend Bastian Schweinsteiger from Chicago, for example, is a DP that's making over $5m in guaranteed money by himself. An FC Cincinnati side being promoted to MLS is going to be expected to go out and sign talent to allow them to compete on Day 1 -- Orlando City (our "model" in this process) went out and paid Kaka $7m for just one of their DP spots. This is just player salary, mind you; other expenses the team will have to incur include increased travel budgets (no more bus rides), higher salaries for coaching and assistants, maintaining a practice facility, and that little business of running a full youth academy.

 

The TL;DR at this point: Moving to MLS is going to be really expensive, relative to what the team is doing at USL. Not a shock, though -- it''s a lot cheaper to run the Louisville Bats than it is to run the Cincinnati Reds. And we know that TV revenue isn't going to come close to covering the shortfalls.

 

So, this is where a stadium comes in. In order to make ends meet, an MLS FC Cincinnati is, quite literally, going to need to sell and monetize every aspect of the club -- and that simply isn't possible at Nippert Stadium. Let's just look at the "big" aspects and see where it doesn't work:

 

Naming Rights: UC (shortsightedly, but that's a different bag of worms entirely) agreed a long time ago to never rename Nippert Stadium. They also agreed to never rename the actual field itself (named after a former AD at the school). There is, as best anyone can figure, nothing that can be done about this. Naming rights to your average professional sports stadium easily run over $1m per year, and go even higher. That's revenue directly out of FC Cincinnati's pocket every year.

 

Concession & Merchandise: Nippert stadium doesn't have the ability to offer premium concessions, where most teams make the bulk of their food money these days (it's no coincdence that every ballpark in America is upgrading from hot dogs and popcorn). For one, there's no ability to actually cook food inside the stadium, and for two there's no additional space available to build new concessions. Similarly, there's limited ability to offer merchandise for sale on matchday. Most, if not all, teams wants to have their team shop on premsies to get the captive audience that comes for matches each week. There's simply no space to build a team shop on Nippert's footprint. Again, all of those lost sales on matchday is money out of FCC's pocket.

 

Seating Reconfiguration: Nippert's all-bench seating is fine for a minor-league soccer club, but when prices go up are people really going to be OK with metal bleachers for a premium price? Chairback seating is almost a must at any modern stadium facility (outside of a supporters section, where safe standing should be in place), and Nippert simply cannot accommodate it without massive restructuring. And, that's assuming you'd get UC to go along with it, given that chairback seating would significantly reduce capacity (eating into their bottom line for football sales).

 

Non-Soccer Event Hosting: Clubs have the ability to monteize their own stadiums when they aren't in use by hosting things like tournaments, other sporting events (college football bowl games, in some cases), concerts, etc. Nippert stadium doesn't work for these events because it's also in use by the university on a daily basis, if not by the football team, than by student organizations and activities.

 

I've described Nippert in previous posts as "Death by 1,000 paper cuts" -- some of the cuts are big (naming rights is a HUGE loss), some are small (not being able to sell a premium sandwich v. a brattwurst), but they all keep adding up. Financially, there isn't a workable model that leads you to FC Cincinnati surviving, as a successful MLS team, in a stadium like Nippert. Even if you could, in some fantasy universe, buy the building and "control it," you'd still need to solve the problem of Jimmy Nippert's name and the physics of fitting more facilities onto an already completely full footprint. Absent solutions to ALL of these issues, I don't see any way the math works there. And, at the end of the day, that's why MLS requires teams to own their own buildings and control all revenue streams coming in -- because they don't want to admit teams that can't pay their bills and/or can't run compettive teams.

 

I understand we're all new at this, and that a lot of people don't follow MLS or really look at MLS economics -- but I encourage everyone to read up on it. I think when you do, you'll understand just how horridly uninformed people like Todd Portune really are.

MLS will probably never "accept" Nippert but FCC needs to "accept" the fact that they aren't going to get taxpayer funding for their stadium. Fans may have to "accept" the fact that the team will not join the MLS. Them's the breaks.

MLS will probably never "accept" Nippert but FCC needs to "accept" the fact that they aren't going to get taxpayer funding for their stadium. Fans may have to "accept" the fact that the team will not join the MLS. Them's the breaks.

 

From everything Berhing has said, it looks like Newport is a go. Portune is politicing and he's showing a top reason why the team will move to Newport...Hamilton County politics. I don't think it's anywhere near a "fact" that FCC is going to be left out of MLS. MLS isn't stopping at 28 anyway but even if they were, FCC has most of its ducks in a row and will get shovels in the ground in Newport as soon as MLS says "go".

Who pays for the stadium if it is built in Newport?

How can you blame Portune for politicking here? I'm not sure if any scientific survey has been done, but I would guess that the vast majority of Hamilton County does not support using taxpayer dollars to help FCC build a new stadium.

Is there any chance MLS lowers the franchise fee to help pay for the stadium ($100M down to $50M)? Tax payer stadiums deals are very rare these days. The MLS may run out of cities because no one can finance a stadium.

There is all this noise on the Hamilton County side about the stadium but nary a peep on the Newport/KY side. Either they are quietly working on a deal or there is no deal.

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

^ ha ha ha ha ha, very comical (Says MLS commissioner Garber about lowering the franchise fee to pay for stadiums).

 

In all seriousness, if this were Miami or Los Angeles or New York or San Fran, then yes because they are the right media markets that the MLS absolutely wants.

 

In Cincinnati, no. It has to be perfect. Cincinnati will get an MLS team because it is too appealing to say no too and they have their ducks in a row to be the most deserving. We are not really a market MLS wants to have but since we prove the most viable at this time, they will take our money, if we have all the details taken care of.

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

 

San Diego's MLS stadium plan was to house SDSU football.

Dayton could help FC Cincinnati’s bid to join Major League Soccer

 

WEST CHESTER - FC Cincinnati, the second-year United Soccer League team, has a secret weapon it hopes will help it elevate to the country’s top professional rung, Major League Soccer: Dayton.

 

FC Cincinnati has set attendance records for the USL and Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, in which it already upset two MLS teams, the Columbus Crew and Chicago Fire. An esteemed arena architect also has created plans for an eye-catching stadium.

 

But its weakest asset in the quest to join MLS is Cincinnati’s market size, team General Manager Jeff Berding recently told team season-ticket holders.

 

Cont

If they want to go for Dayton as the secondary television market for the team, it'd be wise.

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

 

San Diego's MLS stadium plan was to house SDSU football.

Does an ownership group even exist in San Diego?

If they want to go for Dayton as the secondary television market for the team, it'd be wise.

Gross or national ratings are more important than local ratings.

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

 

San Diego's MLS stadium plan was to house SDSU football.

Does an ownership group even exist in San Diego?

 

Yep. FS Investors ($$$$) have already qualified from MLS to apply for expansion. Landon Donovan is their pitch guy. The holdup is that FS wisely hit the ground running as soon as the Chargers bolted. Other developers who were asleep at the wheel swayed city council to delay a public vote that would have certainly given FS the green light to develop the stadium site with no public money. SD's situation is indeed an interesting contrast to FCC.   

 

http://www.soccercitysd.com/

How can you blame Portune for politicking here? I'm not sure if any scientific survey has been done, but I would guess that the vast majority of Hamilton County does not support using taxpayer dollars to help FCC build a new stadium.

 

I have now seen multiple people blaming Portune for "politicking" on social media. I think most of those people are two young to remember the stadium deal and how it soured local politics for at least 15 years after it passed. (Of course many people still remember it, or have read about it, but the vitriolic anti-government attitude seems to have mostly gone away.)

 

Meanwhile, the Western Hills Viaduct is currently closed because a chunk of concrete fell onto the lower deck. I would rather have the county spend $300 million on replacing the viaduct (or whatever its local share would be, assuming we could get state or federal funds to cover the rest) rather than giving incentives for a new FC stadium.

Dayton could help FC Cincinnati’s bid to join Major League Soccer

 

WEST CHESTER - FC Cincinnati, the second-year United Soccer League team, has a secret weapon it hopes will help it elevate to the country’s top professional rung, Major League Soccer: Dayton.

 

FC Cincinnati has set attendance records for the USL and Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, in which it already upset two MLS teams, the Columbus Crew and Chicago Fire. An esteemed arena architect also has created plans for an eye-catching stadium.

 

But its weakest asset in the quest to join MLS is Cincinnati’s market size, team General Manager Jeff Berding recently told team season-ticket holders.

 

Cont

 

Cleveland doesn't "claim" Akron, the two cities are in contiguous counties that are actually part of the same Combined Statistical Area per the U.S. Census Bureau. But putting aside that strange quote from the piece, obviously F.C. Cincinnati would be wise to market itself to Dayton fans, but this gets back to Garber's quote from just a few years back imploring fans from around Ohio to root for the Crew. Cincinnati is not that much closer to Dayton than Columbus, and there is a pretty good chance that if Dayton has deeply-committed MLS fans, they likely pull for the team from Capital City. Meaning, either they're going to be switching affiliations or sticking with their current team. Either of which isn't exactly an ideal situation from an MLS Commissioner's office point of view.

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

 

San Diego's MLS stadium plan was to house SDSU football.

Does an ownership group even exist in San Diego?

 

Yep. FS Investors ($$$$) have already qualified from MLS to apply for expansion. Landon Donovan is their pitch guy. The holdup is that FS wisely hit the ground running as soon as the Chargers bolted. Other developers who were asleep at the wheel swayed city council to delay a public vote that would have certainly given FS the green light to develop the stadium site with no public money. SD's situation is indeed an interesting contrast to FCC.   

 

http://www.soccercitysd.com/

I heard that the fine print in the development of the Qualcomm site did not even require a soccer stadium (that SDSU football needs to use also).  Was the city thinking about just giving away that real estate for next to nothing?

 

San Diego City Council members voted unanimously, 8-0, to put the SoccerCity initiative on the November 2018 ballot Monday, instead of a special election. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer was less than pleased with the council's decision.

 

"The City can now move forward expeditiously with a fair, transparent and competitive process to bring alternate options for the development of the Mission Valley site to the public prior to the November 2018 election," said Bry, in a statement.

 

SoccerCity supporters say that failure to create a special election essentially kills the project, and time is money. They don't expect investors to wait around until 2018, with their plan calling for housing, hotels, a river park and a soccer stadium.

Major League Soccer officials say they are deciding on a city in December and won't pick San Diego if there's no soccer stadium.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/City-Council-Votes-8-0-to-Put-Soccer-City-on-Ballot-in-November-2018-429561433.html

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

 

San Diego's MLS stadium plan was to house SDSU football.

Does an ownership group even exist in San Diego?

 

Yep. FS Investors ($$$$) have already qualified from MLS to apply for expansion. Landon Donovan is their pitch guy. The holdup is that FS wisely hit the ground running as soon as the Chargers bolted. Other developers who were asleep at the wheel swayed city council to delay a public vote that would have certainly given FS the green light to develop the stadium site with no public money. SD's situation is indeed an interesting contrast to FCC.   

 

http://www.soccercitysd.com/

I heard that the fine print in the development of the Qualcomm site did not even require a soccer stadium (that SDSU football needs to use also).  Was the city thinking about just giving away that real estate for next to nothing?

 

Apparently the cost to develop the area is astronomical due to the fact it's a flood plain and there's a bevy of pre-existing issues with soil contamination . So it would be akin to a city selling a crumbling old mansion for $1 to an able and resourceful buyer. The "leadership" at SD State was unhappy with 1. the small size of the proposed stadium and 2. certain rules the MLS would have imposed regarding use that were seen as too rigid and unfair.

 

Is SD's expansion bid dead? Maybe for now. But I do believe it's a no-brainer for MLS to have both Cincy and SD in the fold. 

How can you blame Portune for politicking here? I'm not sure if any scientific survey has been done, but I would guess that the vast majority of Hamilton County does not support using taxpayer dollars to help FCC build a new stadium.

 

I have now seen multiple people blaming Portune for "politicking" on social media. I think most of those people are two young to remember the stadium deal and how it soured local politics for at least 15 years after it passed. (Of course many people still remember it, or have read about it, but the vitriolic anti-government attitude seems to have mostly gone away.)

 

Meanwhile, the Western Hills Viaduct is currently closed because a chunk of concrete fell onto the lower deck. I would rather have the county spend $300 million on replacing the viaduct (or whatever its local share would be, assuming we could get state or federal funds to cover the rest) rather than giving incentives for a new FC stadium.

 

It's because Portune always does things like this: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics-extra/2017/07/14/px-mls-needs-accept-nippert-portune-says/478016001/

 

Portune's probably well aware that MLS isn't going to consider or accept Nippert Stadium. I'm not saying that's right/wrong or that public money should go towards a new stadium, but the reality of the situation is this: MLS doesn't need Cincinnati to the point where they'll let FCC in while renting a college football stadium. Yet, here's Todd Portune still going on about Nippert and Paul Brown Stadium as worth MLS options. It's a smart play, because to the average voter unfamiliar with MLS expansion: how do you argue with that logic? Average joe taxpayer: "Hey, Todd's right. Why isn't Nippert good enough for the MLS, didn't ya see em play on ESPN?"

 

MLS isn't interested in Nippert, FCC isn't interested in pursuing an MLS bid with Nippert in mind. End of story.

 

Portune pulls this kind of crap a lot and even as a Democrat, I find him incredibly frustrating. You can go back and pull up so many articles where he claims we're finally going to get the Oasis Rail Line running. First it was going to be as simple as purchasing used Diesel Motor Units in the 90s and then progressed to "we'll have it before the All-Star Game (2015)" We can walk down to the Transit Center right now and not only can we not go in, but there's no trains running and most transit-minded folks seem to agree that the Oasis Line is a bad idea anyways. Yet, Todd will roll it out every few years.

 

Another example is Metro's recent funding woes. Portune has floated two ideas while asking Metro to hold off on seeking out a tax levy. He's suggested using money from other levies (while offering little detail as to if this can even be done, how much would go to Metro, etc) and creating a multi-state, truly regional transit agency. All of that sounds good in theory, but he never follows up on how to make any of that come about, nor does it do anything to fix the current situation. https://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/04/25/todd-portune-pitches-plan-county-levies-help-sorta-shortfall/100912124/

 

He's also the guy claiming we'll be able to cap Fort Washington Way, one cap at a time: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/13/next-up-riverfront-decks-over--71/99131430/

 

I'll be honest, I'm a big fan and supporter of FC Cincinnati. I'd like to see a stadium get built whether that'd be Newport or Cincinnati. However, I'm watching cautiously at what funding method will be proposed and I believe the county and city have far more pressing matters at hand than a stadium. This latest round of comments from Portune is just more of the same though. He's not going to convince MLS to change their minds and he knows that.

 

Gets his name in the paper though and he comes off as sounding reasonable.

 

Honestly, with Portune, it's hard to say if he's pandering or he actually believes he believes in what he's saying. I think that he actually has a lot of the right ideas, but just has no concept of how difficult it is to implement those ideas.

 

When he said that we could have Oasis Line rail up and running in time for the All Star Game, I think he actually believed that we could just order some trains and have them on the tracks in 6 months as soon as the funding was in place. It's like he has no concept of the fact that most rail vehicles have to be custom built, and he thinks we can just go buy one that's sitting around somewhere.

 

So I would put him more in the "naive" category than the "politicking" category when it comes to his statements on big projects like this.

Honestly, with Portune, it's hard to say if he's pandering or he actually believes he believes in what he's saying. I think that he actually has a lot of the right ideas, but just has no concept of how difficult it is to implement those ideas.

 

When he said that we could have Oasis Line rail up and running in time for the All Star Game, I think he actually believed that we could just order some trains and have them on the tracks in 6 months as soon as the funding was in place. It's like he has no concept of the fact that most rail vehicles have to be custom built, and he thinks we can just go buy one that's sitting around somewhere.

 

So I would put him more in the "naive" category than the "politicking" category when it comes to his statements on big projects like this.

 

^Definitely see where you're coming from. I'm just not sure with him. I feel like even if he was naive, he would've learned at some point or listened to what someone told him. In a recent interview on WVXU he claimed yet again that the Oasis Line was "ready to go." Either he truly believes that the rails are in good shape or he just keeps dangling carrots out there.

Has there been any discussion about "selling" the stadium to the public on potential uses for a new stadium beyond simply hosting an MLS soccer team for ~17 home dates? Soccer-specific stadia are versatile and in other cities have held a number of events, including all levels of rugby, lacrosse, and soccer, college football, high school football, major concerts, marching band competitions, political rallies, etc.

 

San Diego's MLS stadium plan was to house SDSU football.

Does an ownership group even exist in San Diego?

 

Yep. FS Investors ($$$$) have already qualified from MLS to apply for expansion. Landon Donovan is their pitch guy. The holdup is that FS wisely hit the ground running as soon as the Chargers bolted. Other developers who were asleep at the wheel swayed city council to delay a public vote that would have certainly given FS the green light to develop the stadium site with no public money. SD's situation is indeed an interesting contrast to FCC.   

 

http://www.soccercitysd.com/

I heard that the fine print in the development of the Qualcomm site did not even require a soccer stadium (that SDSU football needs to use also).  Was the city thinking about just giving away that real estate for next to nothing?

 

Apparently the cost to develop the area is astronomical due to the fact it's a flood plain and there's a bevy of pre-existing issues with soil contamination . So it would be akin to a city selling a crumbling old mansion for $1 to an able and resourceful buyer. The "leadership" at SD State was unhappy with 1. the small size of the proposed stadium and 2. certain rules the MLS would have imposed regarding use that were seen as too rigid and unfair.

 

Is SD's expansion bid dead? Maybe for now. But I do believe it's a no-brainer for MLS to have both Cincy and SD in the fold.

City should put the real estate on the open market and see what they can get.

 

Various recent estimates of the land value have ranged from zero in its present condition to $3 million per acre, or $240 million for the 79.9 acres once infrastructure was in place. FS is not seeking all 166 acres at Qualcomm to avoid a city charter requirement that sales of 80 acres or more of city land require voter approval. The leftover land remaining in city hands would be used for roads, parks and other public purposes.

http://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2017/03/potential-qualcomm-stadium-sale-terms-revealed/

 

The land is worth $110 million, according to the appraisal, which was completed by a third party hired by the city. It includes not only the area under and around Qualcomm Stadium, but the property and office space in Murphy Canyon — the former Chargers headquarters

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/bombshell-appraisal-puts-qualcomm-stadium-land-at-110-million-as-is/

 

Part of the real estate is subject to flooding/wetlands.

City should put the real estate on the open market and see what they can get.

 

Various recent estimates of the land value have ranged from zero in its present condition to $3 million per acre, or $240 million for the 79.9 acres once infrastructure was in place. FS is not seeking all 166 acres at Qualcomm to avoid a city charter requirement that sales of 80 acres or more of city land require voter approval.

 

So I take it you don't want SD to get a MLS franchise lol.

 

 

City should put the real estate on the open market and see what they can get.

 

Various recent estimates of the land value have ranged from zero in its present condition to $3 million per acre, or $240 million for the 79.9 acres once infrastructure was in place. FS is not seeking all 166 acres at Qualcomm to avoid a city charter requirement that sales of 80 acres or more of city land require voter approval.

 

So I take it you don't want SD to get a MLS franchise lol.

:-D I would rather see Cincy get in, but who the others are to be included I have don't care. I have a

friend in SD who has followed this and has said the development deal does not require that the soccer stadium must be built, even with that they might not be granted a franchise. For the sake of SDSU football I hope a new stadium gets built somewhere in that footprint, cause where else would they play, PETCO Park?

City should put the real estate on the open market and see what they can get.

 

Various recent estimates of the land value have ranged from zero in its present condition to $3 million per acre, or $240 million for the 79.9 acres once infrastructure was in place. FS is not seeking all 166 acres at Qualcomm to avoid a city charter requirement that sales of 80 acres or more of city land require voter approval.

 

So I take it you don't want SD to get a MLS franchise lol.

:-D I would rather see Cincy get in, but who the others are to be included I have don't care. I have a

friend in SD who has followed this and has said the development deal does not require that the soccer stadium must be built, even with that they might not be granted a franchise. For the sake of SDSU football I hope a new stadium gets built somewhere in that footprint, cause where else would they play, PETCO Park?

 

Nah, if they don't build a stadium by 2024 the property reverts back to the city.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-soccerplan-20170217-story.html

 

SDSU can play at Petco in the short term but it's not seen by anyone as a solution.

 

I sure hope the good people of Cincinnati are spared the melodrama and political b.s. we have in SD.

 

 

 

City should put the real estate on the open market and see what they can get.

 

Various recent estimates of the land value have ranged from zero in its present condition to $3 million per acre, or $240 million for the 79.9 acres once infrastructure was in place. FS is not seeking all 166 acres at Qualcomm to avoid a city charter requirement that sales of 80 acres or more of city land require voter approval.

 

So I take it you don't want SD to get a MLS franchise lol.

:-D I would rather see Cincy get in, but who the others are to be included I have don't care. I have a

friend in SD who has followed this and has said the development deal does not require that the soccer stadium must be built, even with that they might not be granted a franchise. For the sake of SDSU football I hope a new stadium gets built somewhere in that footprint, cause where else would they play, PETCO Park?

 

Nah, if they don't build a stadium by 2024 the property reverts back to the city.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/growth-development/sd-fi-soccerplan-20170217-story.html

 

SDSU can play at Petco in the short term but it's not seen by anyone as a solution.

 

I sure hope the good people of Cincinnati are spared the melodrama and political b.s. we have in SD.

Gotcha, if you are in SD then you are probably up to speed on all of this. Curious, did the city only focus on the 1 development plan? No other investment groups were invited to submit proposals? SD is a pretty appealing market to only have 1 Tier 1 team, Padres. Hopefully the Qualcomm site gets developed with a Stadium for MLS and SDSU.

^

There wasn't a formal submission process. FS group just had their act together and, unlike every other developer or SDSU, they were prepared to go forward if and when the Chargers left. They won over the mayor with their self funded plan that's almost too good to be true -  it's transit-oriented development, it cleans up the property, it solves SDSU's stadium issue, it preserves park space, gives much needed residential,  the people get pro sports, it has public support....and then the ballot initiative is blocked by city council lol. Now it could very well be vacant lot for 10 years.

 

Well, SD's dysfunction does help FCC. I just wish both cities the best.     

http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/port-authority-getting-into-the-soccer-stadium-business-its-on-the-table

 

Port Authority getting into the soccer stadium business? It's on the table

With Hamilton County officials leery of owning another sports stadium, FC Cincinnati has approached the Port Authority of Greater Cincinnati with the idea of owning its proposed possibly $200 million soccer stadium. Port Vice President Gail Paul emphasized that discussions with the Port are preliminary, but she’s pleased that the Port is in the conversation. “The county and the city created the Port Authority to be a creative, flexible tool for development,” Paul said. “I think there are certain advantages for partnering with the Port on complex, capital-intensive projects.”

^That's interesting. I am very curious to know what kind of a structure could be set up that all sides could agree to.

It just seems more and more like Newport is going to be the overall winner. I know I know so many people on here would boo and hiss at the thought of the soccer stadium in Kentucky, but Bill Butler with Corporex wants to jump start that development, and Campbell County and Newport have been working behind the scenes lately. Plus with the county and city having backs against the wall with the Tea Party anti tax folks it seems like a stadium deal in Cincinnati will become harder to achieve.

Who knew that SAY soccer started and is based in Cincy

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/2017/07/20/say-soccer-celebrates-50-years-has-big-plans-future/482890001/

^That's interesting. I am very curious to know what kind of a structure could be set up that all sides could agree to.

They are much better positioned to be a partner of sorts than city/county. For the W. End I was even thinking 3CDC as a partner, they were created and funded by the local Fortune 500 and the big companies which really made OTR what it is today. I don't know if the return on investment is there with a stadium though. Linder could bring a number of corporate entities that could own a piece of the Stadium or the Franchise. If the Stadium gets built a bunch of them are going to buy advertising in and outside of the Stadium anyway.

Who knew that SAY soccer started and is based in Cincy

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/2017/07/20/say-soccer-celebrates-50-years-has-big-plans-future/482890001/

LOL I still remember that SAY patch on my soccer uniform as a kid.

It just seems more and more like Newport is going to be the overall winner. I know I know so many people on here would boo and hiss at the thought of the soccer stadium in Kentucky, but Bill Butler with Corporex wants to jump start that development, and Campbell County and Newport have been working behind the scenes lately. Plus with the county and city having backs against the wall with the Tea Party anti tax folks it seems like a stadium deal in Cincinnati will become harder to achieve.

That it isn't it, it pretty much everyone including democrats. The Bengals lease was a bad deal. Politicians are not experts on this and should not negotiate stadium deals.

The Port Authority prospect is really interesting.  It offers a way to operate beyond the reach of COAST, Tim Mara, Tom Luken, etc. 

 

It's unfortunate that this community has a pavlovian response to the word "stadium".  This will be a very small project compared to either the Reds or Bengals stadiums.  Take a walk around either PBS or Great American and remove the upper decks with your mind.  That's what we're talking about.  A much, much smaller structure. 

The Port Authority prospect is really interesting.  It offers a way to operate beyond the reach of COAST, Tim Mara, Tom Luken, etc. 

 

It's unfortunate that this community has a pavlovian response to the word "stadium".  This will be a very small project compared to either the Reds or Bengals stadiums.  Take a walk around either PBS or Great American and remove the upper decks with your mind.  That's what we're talking about.  A much, much smaller structure.

Can anyone post a detailed city/county tax bond proposal to build this stadium, who owns it, who takes care of the maintenance, details, spreadsheet etc.? PBS was designed to be converted to soccer. Correct me if I am wrong ...Hamilton County let go of 30% of their employees because of the stadium lease. Why can't MLS realize that the atmosphere at Nippert is incredible and make an exemption? ESPN put them on ESPN1 vs. Chicago just because it would better than a lot of MLS games.

Only the county can do a sales tax, the city does not have that option.  But $100 million in public money does not necessarily require a new tax.  It's just not that much money anymore.  The City of Cincinnati just funded a $150 million streetcar project with $100 million in local funds.  Some of it was TIFS, some of it was new debt.  Interest rates for municipal bonds are at historic lows. 

Only the county can do a sales tax, the city does not have that option.  But $100 million in public money does not necessarily require a new tax.  It's just not that much money anymore.  The City of Cincinnati just funded a $150 million streetcar project with $100 million in local funds.  Some of it was TIFS, some of it was new debt.  Interest rates for municipal bonds are at historic lows.

If the city county wants to do any tax to come up with 100 Million, have at it. But do not float bonds, do not own it, and give it to Linder over 5-10 years. Cheaper just to give him the money. He knows a lot of other Billionaires and many would be interested in buying shares in exchange for stadium $$$.

^Maybe even the school district could be compelled to build and own title to the thing.  Chris Finney would have to waste a ton of time in the law library trying to figure out how to block that in such a way that his law firm could exploit it. 

 

The Lindners know that asshat is out there ready to pull his same old city charter b.s.  Get a charter on the ballot with confusing ballot language, confuse the public, get it passed, then sue, then settle.  Over and over again for the past 25 years until Cranley paid him $600k to go away.