More on UC vs the Bengals

Claims.  Counterclaims.  Awesome comments.  Lots has been said so far about the UC and Bengals situation but more clarification is needed.  So here goes:

We originally posted that UC and the Bengals are having some difficulty settling on two things:  1) Potential use of PBS and 2) An offer to build an indoor practice facility.

Bill Koch of the Enquirer spoke with UC official Bob Arkeilpane who played down any rumors.  You can read what we think of that article here.  The key points are the following:  1) Bob claims UC has not tried to move '09 games to PBS, 2) The Bengals approached UC about moving games there, 3) Discussions never got to the point of fees, 4) UC's desire is to play at Nippert, 5) UC is investigating the costs of renovating Nippert and 6) UC approached the Bengals about a practice facility but the Bengals did not express interest at this time.

Got that?

More recently, Lance McAlister outlined on his blog comments on this issue from a Bengals executive. 

The key points to this post are:  1) The Bengals offered UC the basically the same rent terms as UK/Miami, 2) The Bengals reached out to UC about the '09 WVA & Louisville games for NFL scheduling reasons, 3)The Bengals have been proactive towards UC but UC prefers Nippert to PBS, 4) The Bengals and Hamilton County split 50%/50% revenues from rent, suite sales, and parking for all "other events" held at PBS and 5) The Miami/UK game was negotiated with Brad Bates (Miami AD) for almost four years.

Got that, too?

(Lance also includes the fee schedule charged to Miami/UK for use of PBS which is really interesting but not relevant - it'll be for another post - to our discussion)

So what to make of these comments from UC and the Bengals?  Here is what WDR believes are the salient points:

1. Both sources confirm that the Bengals reached out to UC about playing games in '09 at PBS and UC was not interested.  UC preferred to play at Nippert and there is no reason to doubt that.  HOWEVER, the key point here is that these discussions both parties mentioned happened before the high cost of renovating Nippert was known.  At least, that is WDR's understanding of the situation.  The expenses required for renovation make PBS a more attractive option than UC originally believed so prior talks are not relevant.

2. In UC's statement, Arkeilpane claims the discussion for rent never reached the point of fees.  However, the Bengals (via Lance) claim they offered preliminary terms similar to the UK-Miami game.  This is inconsistent.

3. The only fees discussed by either party concern single game events:  UC v OSU (2002) and Miami v UK.  However, the pricing WDR is concerned with are for multiple games, where UC effectively "rents" PBS (more similar to the Pitt and South Florida arrangements we mentioned).  One would assume the pricing for single, big-name games versus multiple games would be different (quantity/quality discount).  This may help explain the discrepancy in the 5 times the normal rent claim in our original post:  we're comparing a single game price to a multiple game price. 

4. And why UK v Miami would be a relevant benchmark for fees charged to UC for multiple games is perplexing given the very different nature of their situations.  It is virtually impossible for Miami to attract BCS teams to play them at Yeager so if they want a marquee opponent at a home game they must look elsewhere (less negotiating leverage).

5. While the Bengals have disclosed their fees for one time usage of the stadium they do not, however, disclose if they make those using the stadium pay for the associated game day costs (such as security) which can be quite expensive.  Making the 3rd party cover those costs is equivalent to raising your fee so it's very important to find out that part of the story too.

6. Aren't you thrilled that the Bengals get to keep half of all the revenues for 3rd party events that have little to do with them?  Actually, I'll shut up, I should be grateful their lease doesn't give them the rights to all revenues for a stadium the county owns.

7. It took 4 years for the Miami v UK game to get arranged?  Is that a boasting point?  Cause that seems like a shockingly long time to negotiate use for one game.  Obviously a lot goes into that process but price is part of the element - so it seems the two sides were far apart on price for a loooong time.  Though that is admittedly speculation.

8. The indoor practice facility receives barely any attention - only an off hand comment from Bob Arkeilpane.  This issue has not been addressed at all.

So, in sum, while a lot has been said, not much of substance has emerged to refute our original post.  Both sides cleverly dance around the issue without hitting it head on.  So until we find out more about the PBS usage fees for multiple games and what talks are in motion regarding indoor practice facilities, we still see nothing to lead us to believe our original post needs to be materially updated.

If the issues are addressed head on, we'll back off.  But until then....

 

ps - now that the Bengals have disclosed their usage fees, WDR would love to solicit some help researching comparable fees at other publicly funded stadiums.  anyone who can find or help find this information please email us at whodeyrevolution@gmail.com

Comments

[BILL]

Dummies- you guys are making mountains out of mole hills. Who gives a damn if they want to rent the stadium or not? Who really believes an outdoor training facility is necessary? You train as you fight, and you don't fight in indoor practice facilities. The steelers have one and don't use it because their coach thinks the idea of practicing in one is pointless.

[Brother Adam]

I usually agree with what you guys post on this site, but this one feels like a bit of a stretch just to make the Bengals look bad. I believe it hurts the revolution when you try to stretch like this. It makes you look like the little kid who was picked last in kick ball and will forever have a grudge. In other words, it looks like you will do everything you can to try to make the Bengals look bad.

I agree the story is plausible, but there's too much unknown here. You should be saying that, based on the inconsistencies from both sides, everyone needs to refrain from judgement until more is known. Instead, you are saying, given the inconsistencies from both sides, you feel like you don't need to revise your original post. Wow!

[Sleeping With Bieniemy]

@Brother Adam - I don't want to get into a long back and forth.

But here's the logic: we got info from a source that was reliable in the past. We ran a post on that info. UC and the Bengals have both made statements, neither of which flat out denied the claims in our post with facts of their own. If UC or the Bengals know our source is getting the facts waaaaay wrong they could easily address the issue. Instead they are dancing around it. That is curious, some might say suspicious. Hence, we are leaving our original post untouched.

[Mike H]

Sounds like a non-story

[votasi]

ok, now i see. this site does not consider itself a relevant source of information. it´s amateur hour at best. maybe a professional football team and a university don´t feel like getting out of bed to refute your leaky original post.

your pathetic point 1 - sounds like it´s uc´s fault for not wanting the deal when it was offered the first time. now that they´re out of position, you want to blame a businessman for using his leverage...

your twisted point 3 - since when does offering to buy more quantity demand you get a discount. that´s only if the market warrants it. it´s not automatic. in this instance, again considering uc missed the boat on the original offer and is in a bind, there´s no need to cut them a break at all.

forget your point 4 - yes miami is in a bad spot, warrenting your ´irrelevant´ comparison...until you realize, as you yourself point out, that uc is in a bad spot now that the costs of renovating nippert are known.

missing parts of point 5 - and you need to find out (with actual facts and research for a change) if other teams like the pitt/usf deals you keep blabbing about have to pay for security and how much it actually is. this site has lost so much credibility that no one wants to take your chubby-gut assumptions.

couldn´t resist yourself on point 6 - so this is what a ´salient´point looks like...your new agenda of twisting everything into a cincinnati pity party over mike brown´s existence is stale now. stick to his operations as a football man and how they need to be removed for the benefit of our team. you´re not going to win critizing his business skills. they are light-years ahead of your writing skills.

how the fuck can an admitted dribble of speculation be considered a salient point, number 7! do you sound out the words before you refuse to use a dictionary...

the aftertaste of your own starfish on point 8 - you all had to make this shit up in your original post. one adept commentator already addressed this point earlier, here - there - and oh yeah, here. when people read that garbage you keep directing them to, they will immediately see the ignorance of you trying to suggest that a uc alum-booster wants to build the bearcats a practice facility, but is awaiting bengal´s approval. if that´s the case, then uc alums are hatchet wounds and the school deserves what it gets.

all in all, you have a weak-ass fluff piece here, nothing more. and really, really... no, it´s not obvious that by preventing the bearcats from playing in pbs, they will prevent the excitement about uc. if the bearcats are good, interest will take care of itself regardless of where they play. this site is approaching hack status. but then again, you´ve said that´s how you want to be viewed - here, here, and for sure, here.

dually noted.

[Marc]

votasi, you have obviously had a change of heart, on May 6th, you left a comment on the original post "Bengals Refuse to Partner.....for Proposed Indoor Practice Facility" in support of the post and how it was exactly the kind of thing this site SHOULD be doing. There have been more details to surface since then, but still nothing I've seen that's definitive on either side. I just think its funny how you've gone from giving them an "atta boy", to the extreme opposite stance you're taking now. But, hey, you're entitled to type whatever you want here.

And you're right, if UC has another good year, things will take care of themselves, and UC will continue to grow its support and fan base. But that doesn't mean Mike Turd won't do whatever he can to try and hinder that growth and/or make as much money as he can from it, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to find out these reports are true. You are also right he's a heck of a business man, so I don't think he's wrong to hike up the fees to UC as much as he can, but if it's true, he isn't going to win any PR battles (which he obviously cares nothing about anyway).

I also agree with BILL, this is now a mountain that didn't need to be made. In the grand scheme, this really is a side note. If true, another example of how Mikey cares nothing about the people of Cincinnati, and his primary focus has been, and always will be making $. If it's not true, than who cares, it wouldn't be the first time an internet blog site ran with information from a "source" that turned out to be a load of crap.

[Brian]

votasi,

you need some friends. all you do is bitch about this site... if you have such a problem with it, then stop reading it, and get a life. get your own blog so other whiney little kids can complain about how an amateur blog has a lack of journalistic integrity.

how's this... you can tell me everything that WDR is doing wrong, and what you would do to make it better... and i'll tell you what a vagina feels like.

your shit's weak.