Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 125
  1. #111
    They can threaten that, but it might not really mean anything. With the location they have along the riverfront there are all kinds of environmental concerns AND regulations by various governmental bodies that would come into play with ANY new construction. That would certainly make it much harder to tear down and build new from scratch. Since I don't live in Cincinnati, I don't really have dog in the fight when it comes to taxes and public money being used. From what I understand the "renovation" of the arena would be basically keeping the footprint of the current facility but with everything else being new....thus the 200 million dollars being spent v 80-90 million like 5/3 arena. I hope they find a way to do it.

  2. #112
    The King of My Domain xu95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by ThrowDownDBrown View Post
    You don't need a major tenant to have a profitable arena. Not having a tenant to schedule around actually opens up more days for more events. Just look at how building an arena with public money and no major tenant is working out for Kansas City.

    http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/ed...le4645824.html

    Also that WCPO article headline is pure clickbait. The plan Nederlander wants to do is the same one they announced a couple years ago: a $200-$300 million renovation of US Bank that would basically build a new arena using the current ones structure.

    Getting an actual modern day arena would be huge for Cincinnati. We'd get a ton of concerts, acts and events that currently skip over us because of how bad US Bank is. Getting some of the older idiots in this city to vote for it though is a huge issue. Even if they simply raised hotel taxes (aka out of towners would pay for it as opposed to a city wide sales tax increase for the Reds and Bengals stadium) I still doubt the population here would vote for it.
    I love the Sprint Center. It seems like I am there all the time. It is also in the Power and Light District which is a great restraurant/bar area. Very similar to the Banks.

    Sprint Center always has events. I agree a permanent tenant might be more of a hinderance than a benefit.

    Who in Cincinnati wouldn't love to go out to dinner at the Yard House or Ruths Chris and then walk down the street to see a concert. it would be great for the city.

    Make it happen already.

  3. #113
    Sophomore Caveat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by nuts4xu View Post
    I have no idea who pays for a new/renovated US Bank, but this city desperately needs a modern arena. The current dump is being spurned on a regular basis by events that would mean a great deal of revenue for city businesses. It is VERY hard to justify the expense of a new venue without a permanent tenant, but I really hope they can make this happen in time to host tourney games in 5 years.
    There simply aren't enough things that can fill a modern arena in a town with no NBA/NHL to justify the cost.

    If the revenue opportunities were so great, they'd have no problem finding someone to privately build a new arena. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.

  4. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat View Post
    There simply aren't enough things that can fill a modern arena in a town with no NBA/NHL to justify the cost.

    If the revenue opportunities were so great, they'd have no problem finding someone to privately build a new arena. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.
    Sprint Center in KC is literally one of the busiest arenas (4th busiest to be precise. http://www.sprintcenter.com/news/det...-busiest-arena) in the country and they have no tenants.

    There are several cities that have modern arenas and no tenants. If they can do it, why Can't Cincinnati?

  5. #115
    When just one isnt enough X-band '01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The 3C Rail Line
    Posts
    10,281
    It's been almost 35 years since their last pro sports tenant - the Kansas City Kings.

    However, I do think another thing in play for KC is that the nearest major cities are much further away (i.e. St. Louis, Omaha, Wichita) than there would be in Cincinnati. In other words, not as much competition as there is in this area for concerts, events and the like.

  6. #116
    Sophomore Caveat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by xumuskies08 View Post
    Sprint Center in KC is literally one of the busiest arenas (4th busiest to be precise. http://www.sprintcenter.com/news/det...-busiest-arena) in the country and they have no tenants.

    There are several cities that have modern arenas and no tenants. If they can do it, why Can't Cincinnati?
    Because we're already paying off two publicly financed sports facilities?

    Because if it made such good business sense to build a modern arena, there would be no shortage of people looking to build one and reap the profits from said venture?

    Because, as X-Band said, we're surrounded by other modern facilities (Nationwide, Bankers Life, Yum Center) all ~2 hours away that are competing for events?

  7. #117
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat View Post
    Because we're already paying off two publicly financed sports facilities?

    Because if it made such good business sense to build a modern arena, there would be no shortage of people looking to build one and reap the profits from said venture?

    Because, as X-Band said, we're surrounded by other modern facilities (Nationwide, Bankers Life, Yum Center) all ~2 hours away that are competing for events?
    I don't think he was referring to how it should be financed; just saying that having a modern stadium with no major tenants is a viable option.

  8. #118
    Supporting Member LA Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,150
    A common myth of arena financing is that if it's a worthwhile venture then the operator should pay for the capital expenses itself. That's an overly simplistic notion that fails to adequately take into account the significant public free rider problem that differentiates it from most other business ventures. Look around the country at urban rehabilitation projects. You'd be hard pressed to find one that didn't have an entertainment venue of some sort at its hub.

  9. #119
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    23,034
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Muskie View Post
    A common myth of arena financing is that if it's a worthwhile venture then the operator should pay for the capital expenses itself. That's an overly simplistic notion that fails to adequately take into account the significant public free rider problem that differentiates it from most other business ventures. Look around the country at urban rehabilitation projects. You'd be hard pressed to find one that didn't have an entertainment venue of some sort at its hub.
    I don't think it really differentiates it from other business ventures. There is plenty of "free ride" for the public with any successful business venture (jobs, business catering to employees and others who visit/are attracted to said business venture). There may be a difference in scale (depending on the scope of the other business venture, too), but it is fundamentally no different. Which is, of course, why cities compete to give subsidies to companies who don't really "need" them for their already likely to be successful business ventures or expansions.

  10. #120
    Supporting Member LA Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,150
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    I don't think it really differentiates it from other business ventures. There is plenty of "free ride" for the public with any successful business venture (jobs, business catering to employees and others who visit/are attracted to said business venture). There may be a difference in scale (depending on the scope of the other business venture, too), but it is fundamentally no different. Which is, of course, why cities compete to give subsidies to companies who don't really "need" them for their already likely to be successful business ventures or expansions.
    That may be a better way of putting it. Manufacturers often get significant tax subsidies to build factories and move operations into locales. Public-assisted financing of sports/entertainment venues are of the same ilk. I think it's fair to question the degree to which the public should participate. But I think the "no participation" side is a reactionary swing of the pendulum too far to the opposite direction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •