You heard it right, the @ussoccer_wnt will be visiting Nippert Stadium this fall! #RiseTogether pic.twitter.com/SohxCerkIr— FC Cincinnati (@fccincinnati) July 7, 2017
The big benefit of corporate headquarters is the ability to leverage them for league sponsorships. Cincinnati's bid could contain letters of intent from Proctor and Gamble, Kroger, Fifth/Third and/or Macy's for league sponsorships. These companies have national presence and big consumer advertising budgets. Detroit with GM and Ford are intriguing, as is Charlotte with Bank of America and Lowes, San Antonio has USAA. Nashville, Indianapolis (Eli Lilly) and even Louisville with Yum! Brands are also interesting. Any of these would be great additions to the league portfolio. Tampa is kind of interesting, too. They are home to Outback Steakhouses. You have to consider Publix as a major regional sponsor. They are located midway between Orlando and Tampa. SunTrust has a big history in Florida. Both maintain a presence at most sports venues in the state. They will support multiple teams in the Southeastern US. Defense contractors and state government lobbyists are less likely to support the league.
http://sbisoccer.com/2017/07/hamilt...-unconvinced-fc-cincinnati-need-a-new-stadium Hamilton County Commissioner 'Unconvinced' FC Cincinnati need a new stadium
Big blow for Cincinnati, but as I've said, Newport is there as a backup. If anything this makes it for FC Cincinnati to go "we tried with them, but they didn't get it". Sadly this feels like old Cincinnati that made bad decisions compared to recent years doing lots of great things. Given the other hurdles that exist having local politicians working against it would make Newport even more appealing than Cincinnati.
Thankfully old Cincinnati didn't make this bad decision. Sales taxes for stadium are generally terrible investments. Old Cincinnati will have spent over 1 billion on stadiums between 2001-2025. Newport has the TIF district, will make a fine location.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...n-county-wish-list-close-1-billion/485168001/ State grants may be at play for the stadium. Said they are working on a tax incentive plan. Said the county owns 2 too many stadiums and they aren't owning a third. Does not mean they aren't negotiating proper deals
Doesn't help that US Bank Area, home of an nth division minor league hockey team, shows up, hat in hand asking for $340 million at the same time. The county isn't wanting to add a half a billion to the stadium money pit. Don't blame them. http://local12.com/news/local/replacing-us-bank-arena-370-million-project-finding-resistance Quite honestly, it really doesn't hurt. MLS has a choice between an existing stadium on a college campus the supporters love with known economics or take a bet on a Riverfront stadium closer to downtown than they have in places like Philly, Chicago, Dallas, etc.
http://cincinnatisoccertalk.com/2017/08/09/fc-cincinnati-sell-us-open-cup-semifinal-help-mls-bid Does the FC Cincinnati Sell Out of US Open Cup Semifinal Help MLS Bid? August 9, 2017
Cincinatti taxpayers likely will end up footing the bill for a money losing and game losing business franchise. http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/13/if-mls-is-a-ponzi-scheme-taxpayers-will
This article is heavily reliant on deMause's speculation, much of which is known to be faulty. Nothing to see here.
You're right. They do tend to have a bias against spending tax dollars to support specific businessmen (i.e. crony capitalism). Not sure if this is a refutation of their argument though. Are there specific facts which are incorrect or flawed logic?
I'm somewhere between libertarianism, conservatism, and pragmatic centrism, so I often agree with Reason.com. But the danger in rigid ideology is that it's especially easy to shove something into a defined category, and then not be critical about other aspects. Reason.com doesn't like it when public money is used to facilitate the goals of private entities. This is understandable, as it's a common way for politicians and bureaucrats to do favors for their friends. But it means they author and editor aren't critical enough of deMause's charges. DeMause says MLS is "something like" a Ponzi Scheme. There are a couple key characteristics of a Ponzi Scheme: secrecy and difficulty divesting. Neither of these apply to MLS. The books are private, but not secret; those who wish to invest are given access to financial records before giving up money, and can call on independent auditors who have signed NDAs when they do it. Those who wish to leave can. Recently, MLS owners bought out Providence Equity's share of SUM after a year of negotiation sparked not by PEP, but by the owners wanting a greater share of the subsidiary. Are there MLS owners who have wished to divest and were not permitted to do so? As far as can be seen, the answer is no. MLS most resembles rapidly growing young businesses, where annual losses occur not because operations aren't generating enough revenue, but because investing more than the potential profit back into the company will fuel future growth.
Okay, I'll admit, when ever a libertarian begins espousing libertarianism, I turn off my ears. For some reason (pun intended) we've given liberatians' unworkable ideas much more weight in this country than they deserve. There. You know my politics. Reason is a well-known libertarian rag that rags (double-pun) on any sort of public spending. On the article in question. FC Cincinnati hasn't asked tax payers to "fund" a stadium in the traditional sense. They're asking for the same types of tax breaks that many other private entities get for building projects. Whether you agree with that or not? Fine. I think it's splitting hairs. Secondly, to call MLS a ponzi scheme is disingenuous at best and willfully ignorant at worst.
Two good responses addressing the actual arguments made. I do agree, it is up to the people investing to decide if it is a ponzi scheme or a smart long term investment. Glad to hear that the books are open to insiders. My only quibble is that if the public is being asked to invest shouldn't the books be open to the public?
I agree the books should be open if public dollars are used. Now if the team is asking for tax-increment financing vs. tapping in to the already existing stadium tax pool, the disclosure requirements might be different. I'm not making a judgement, just an assumption.
That gets at a legitimate question that is much broader in scope. Lots of states and municipalities use public financial incentives in development to attract employers and build a tax base. Past employers of mine include a city planning department that was dramatically short on tax revenue which incentivized businesses like Costco Wholesale to draw them to town, a car dealer group which relies on sales tax breaks to fund facility improvements, and a tech company which relocated largely because the property improvements were covered. I don't know how much these companies would've disclosed if it were required to get specific benefits, but it's reasonable to require some level of hard evidence when public funds benefit private entities.
Hope to get some feedback on this, and I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed somewhere in the scattered thread maze of MLS Expansion in this forum. I saw an article in the Enquirer about a month ago which said that Cincinnati would be included in the World Cup bid with Paul Brown Stadium being the venue. This week Garber made some comments which suggested he is softening his stance on the SSS requirement for expansion teams. Would this make Nippert a more long term option? Also, why can't the team use Paul Brown? Attendance is so good and the waterfront development is coming along nicely it seems like a good fit.