Search Results for: Bengals stadium: Worst. Deal. Ever?

Hamilton County asks Ohio for $234m for Bengals stadium upgrades, just for kicks

access_time personNeil deMause

As mentioned on Friday, pretty much every pro sports team in Ohio is racing to grab a chunk of the state’s $1.7 billion unclaimed funds pool, which really everyone should have expected would happen as soon as the state made clear that it planned to use the money for sports projects instead of leaving it in place until the people whose money it really was could claim it. So far we have had the Cleveland Browns in for $600 million, the Guardians and Cavaliers seeking $105 million combined, and the Columbus Crew hoping for $100 million; now Hamilton County has put a price tag on its ask to the state for the Cincinnati Bengals, and it is $234 million:

In its application, the county estimated the cost of the project at $936.7 million. That’s different from the $830 million figure the county has floated as the cost of a complete renovation package. So far, the county is funding $350 million, while the Bengals are chipping in $120 million.

So that would be $350 million from the county, $234 million from the state, and $120 million from the team, which comes to $704 million — on a project costing $936.7 million. Huh. You’d think someone would notice a $232 million funding gap, but maybe they have big plans for a GoFundMe?

The most eyebrow-raising part of the county’s request to the state, meanwhile, is that the Bengals already signed an 11-year lease extension in exchange for the $350 million from the county. (The county also agreed to take on about $300 million in future stadium operating expenses, making it nearly $60 million per year that of the lease, which just might be the worst deal ever.) As the Cincinnati Business Journal deadpanned, “The county’s application to the state does not say anything about the Bengals extending their lease in exchange for an additional $234 million. … Typically, when the state makes a major outlay of taxpayer-funded incentives to companies that create jobs, it requires them to stay beyond the term of the incentive the firms will receive.” But not the Bengals, nuh-uh — which would make a state donation of $234 million in exchange for a zero-year lease extension be the single most expensive per-year stadium subsidy in history, at $∞/year.

Of course, if the state of Ohio doesn’t give the money to Bengals owner Mike Brown, the original owners might come claim it, so maybe they’ll just hand it over, no questions asked. (Using the money for some public use other than privately occupied sports venues doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone.) Also of course, there’s still a lawsuit pending against the use of the fund for sports purposes, and if that succeeds, a whole lot of holes could get blown in a lot of stadium budgets, including the Browns stadium project that is set to break ground today. Many, many ways this can end, pretty much none of them good, which would make it the most 2026 story of 2026, except for all the others.

Share this post:

WTH is up with that “Bengals should move to Chicago” story?

access_time personNeil deMause

It’s always fun when you get to see how stupidity breaks out in real time, and so it was with the story growing over the last few days that the Cincinnati Bengals ownership could respond to the looming expiration of their lease by moving, and in particular by moving to Chicago. This, it turned out, was less a rumor — a rumor needs to be spread by multiple people — than conjecture, or maybe just a looming deadline and the desperation of one man, NBC Sports’ Mike Florio:

With the [Chicago] Bears getting nowhere when it comes to finagling taxpayer funding for a new stadium, the solution could come from having a second team play there.

Instantly, the inventory of games would double, from 10 to 20. It would become much easier for the Bears (and possibly the other team, unless it’s just a tenant) to pay for the building with minimal public assistance.

Enter the Bengals. They’re less than three months away from the final countdown to the expiration of their lease at Paycor Stadium. During the league meetings this week, executive V.P. Katie Blackburn said the quiet thing out loud — after 2025, the Bengals can go wherever they want to go.

It’s easy to come up with a list of cities that currently have no NFL teams. But the best outcome for the Bengals, and the Bears, could be to partner up in a new Chicagoland stadium. Lakefront or Arlington Heights. Wherever. The revenue from 20 NFL games each year, along with everything else that could be hosted in a fixed-roof building, should be able to pay for the building.

It’s hard to know where to even begin. Yes, splitting the costs of a $2 billion or so stadium between two teams would make it somewhat more affordable — but there’s little sign that the revenue from 20 NFL games a year plus “everything else” that could be hosted there would pay for a new building. After all, the Bears and Bengals each play 20 combined home games a year (including preseason) right now, so those revenues would have to rise by about $7 million per game — that’s $100 more per ticket sold, in a future Chicago where the two teams were fighting for the same fan dollars — just to break even.

Still, it was off to the news cycle races, as the Cincinnati Enquirer and multiple other outlets repeated Florio’s suggestion without asking anyone if it made any sense; something called Motorcycle Sports even chimed in, calling it a “bold idea.” USA Today’s Bengals Wire at least called it the “worst possible take,” though in doing so the site still managed to amplify Florio’s fantasy by sending clicks its way. (I realize I’m doing the same here; fact-checking bad reporting is always tricky to do without giving more air to the original misinformation, what whatcha gonna do.)

None of which matters for the idea of the Bengals moving to Chicago, because there is zero sign that either the Bengals or Bears owners would ever consider it. But it does help cement the idea in people’s heads that the Bengals might move somewhere, which is exactly what Bengals VP Katie Blackburn was hoping to do last week by saying, “We could, I guess, go wherever we wanted after this year if we didn’t pick the option up. So, you know, we’ll see.” (A statement, incidentally, that was called “a powerful, loaded comment“ by one Mike Florio.) That option is to extend the Bengals’ legendarily lucrative lease for five years, something the Bengals owners are mulling doing unless Hamilton County coughs up a sweet enough renovation deal to entice them to sign a new lease with fewer holographic replay system guarantees. Threatening to move the team at the same time as you’re threatening to stay and extend your sweetheart lease is … I think “bold idea” sums it up pretty well, don’t you?

Share this post:

Proposed Vegas Raiders lease includes “top-tier” clause, this really is the worst ever

access_time personNeil deMause

I almost included this in the last post, but then I figured it really deserved its own item, because oh man, they’re not really considering this, are they?

The Authority or its designees shall have the obligation to, and shall, provide, perform and take, or cause to be provided, performed or taken, such actions, at the Authority’s expense, either directly or through the Manager, as may be necessary or reasonably advisable to operate and maintain the Stadium and Stadium Infrastructure in a safe, clean, attractive, and first-class manner similar to and consistent with other premier, top-tier NFL facilities (the “Expected Facility Standard”) and in compliance with all Applicable Laws.

That’s from Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis’s proposed lease with Nevada for a Las Vegas stadium, and yes, it’s a state-of-the-art clause, requiring the state to maintain a stadium in “top-tier” condition on its own dime. I.e., the same kind of clause that let the St. Louis Rams escape their lease and move back to L.A. after 20 years.

Now, a couple of caveats. First off, unlike some other state-of-the-art clauses (cough Cincinnati Bengals cough), this one doesn’t spell out a wish list of items like “holographic replay systems” that the state would have to provide if other NFL teams got them. And it’s only about “operations and maintenance,” so doesn’t specifically talk about capital improvements (though it also doesn’t rule them out). And there’s no specified penalty for violating it that I can find, though being considered in breach of contract is never a good thing. And this is only Davis’s proposal, so there’s still room for Nevada’s lawyers to red-line through the worst bits.

That said, don’t ever sign open-ended state-of-the-art clauses, people! At best, this would be an invitation for Davis to, say, declare that he can’t possibly operate a top-tier stadium without a scoreboard that stretches to Utah, and threaten to sue to break his lease and move the team if taxpayers don’t build him a new one. One hopes that even if the local rich guy rejoins the deal, Nevada officials will still balk at agreeing to this — I mean, one doesn’t hope too hopefully, given how eager they were to approve $750 million in tax money for a stadium in the first place, but even that doesn’t justify a blank check for future upgrades, right? Right?

Share this post: