Cincinnati is starting a new soccer team, FC Cincinnati. That team will play in Nippert Stadium ... Where the UC Bearcats play football. That's a 40K seat stadium. The goal of FC Cincinnati is to be a MLS franchise ...
My point of that:
I really don't understand why they can't just build a 40K seat stadium for this soccer team, and UM contribute the cost for the additional 10K seats.
Adding that cost to a buyout amount from the Sun-Life lease would still be below the cost to acquire a new site and build their own from scratch. And the Sun-Life buyout could be reduced by playing 1-2 games there every season ...
Can someone with real knowledge on the topic explain this to me?
Seriously, is combining the incremental cost to increase the seating by 10K with the lease buyout more expensive than continuing the lease?
And as I understand it, UM doesn't make money at Sun-Life, so they could continue that arrangement for the initial years at the new venue through the existing lease expiration with Sun-Life, and then share in revenue when that's over.
Assuming my understanding is accurate, they have a smaller home stadium, no increased expenses, and eventually get to a revenue sharing point. Plus, still keep access to Sun-Life for certain games.
Anybody with real insight care to share why this can't be done, or what I'm missing?