Skip to content

The staggering taxpayer costs of Paul Brown Stadium

paulbrownstadium-100415-usnews-getty-ftr_1jhhmfbpiqlej1fn0xk6oosbpt Getty Images

The NFL no longer can use Los Angeles for leverage. But L.A. more than served its purpose.

In Cincinnati, L.A. is continuing to serve its purpose.

Via Amansa Seitz of WCPO.com, the taxpayers in Hamilton County, Ohio already have coughed up $920 million for Paul Brown Stadium, which opened in 2000. With the county beginning to foot the bill for some of the team’s game-day operating expenses in 2017 (to the tune of $2.7 million per year and growing) along with other expenses will put the total cost to $1.1 billion through 2026, when the lease with the team expires.

It’s safe to say that if/when the Bengals decide come 2026 that they need a stadium, they shouldn’t count on getting anything close to that from the county.

“Is it worth it? I don’t know,” Hamilton County Commissioner Chris Monzel said, via Seitz. “My gut says it probably hasn’t generated the rate of return on investment that other projects do. From a civic pride standpoint, people are excited about [the Bengals]. You’ve got some intangibles that you can’t really put a price tag on.”

In more and more cities, the price tag for those intangibles has become zero dollars and zero cents. It’s highly unlikely that, in any city at any point now or in the future, the contribution for a stadium will be $1 billion or more, ever again.

Permalink 69 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cincinnati Bengals, Home, Rumor Mill
69 Responses to “The staggering taxpayer costs of Paul Brown Stadium”
  1. savethebs says: Jan 18, 2016 10:41 AM

    Really wish these cities would just stop. At some point the NFL will run out of cities to threaten to move to. Oh yeah Cincinnati, you don’t want to pay for a new stadium?!? Well how do the Richmond Bengals or the Mobile Bengals sound?!? No?!? Wichita Bengals?

    Doesn’t sound to threatening.

  2. hippieway says: Jan 18, 2016 10:49 AM

    The owners should establish a Stadium Fund to assist each other when new arenas are required and let the NFL write the thousand page outline of requirements a team would have to meet in order to be eligible for those contributions.
    That way the owners could display unity for the NFL and the NFL could put it to the owners at the same time.

  3. hogs2016 says: Jan 18, 2016 10:50 AM

    Being from the UK it blows my mind that billionaire NFL owners aren’t expected to finance their own stadiums.

    Scandalous, but the NFL has no shame in holding a gun to the cities head with a threat of relocation.

  4. joetoronto says: Jan 18, 2016 10:50 AM

    Ladies and gentlemen, Paul Brown and the Cincinnati Bungals.

  5. jm91rs says: Jan 18, 2016 10:52 AM

    Cincinnati should serve as the cautionary tale for EVERY city trying to keep an NFL team. There isn’t enough money for police officers, but we can buy the Bengals (and Reds) a new state of the art scoreboard.

    Also worth noting that the County Commissioner that pushed this deal wound up working for The Bengals after his term (no way he could get elected once it became apparent how horrible this deal was for the taxpayers). He’s still there and I’m betting he got a lifetime gig when he screwed the county over.

  6. cruisekid says: Jan 18, 2016 10:53 AM

    Nice lease negotiations by so called conservative Republican County Commissioners. Conservatism always seems to take a nap when the money is going to a corporation.

    Back to conservatism when making county employees go six years without a pay raise.

  7. hornbuckle says: Jan 18, 2016 10:55 AM

    The part you don’t mention is that to get the issue past the voters was they increased the sales tax in Hamilton county and decreased the property taxes. So to the average homeowner it was a break even proposition. If you don’t own a home live in Hamilton county and don’t have the ways or means to shop in neighboring counties you are screwed.
    That said it was a poor deal for the county.

  8. upperdecker19 says: Jan 18, 2016 10:55 AM

    Can only imagine how those public schools are functioning over there…..yikes!

  9. cymbaline6 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:01 AM

    If you ever wonder why the fans in Cincinnati have such a weird, often-lukewarm relationship with the Bengals and have trouble selling out the stadium, just look at this article, last Saturday’s loss, and maybe an article about the costs of attending an NFL game in person.

  10. therealraider says: Jan 18, 2016 11:02 AM

    Hamilton County, Ohio has come up with $920 million since 2000, but, Alameda County, California still owes more than half on a $200 million renovation that was completed in 1995. Oakland/Alameda has to be the most poorly managed City and County in America.

  11. spiffybiff says: Jan 18, 2016 11:03 AM

    If I am not mistaken this is cherry picking. This is considered one of the shadier deals in some time. Most of the stadium deals don’t go down the way this one did.

    It makes sense in places like la Houston nyc etc because they are in the running for olympics world cups Super Bowls etc. a place like Cincinnati is in now way a Apex city or even really a destination

  12. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:04 AM

    How disgusting. No city or state should give a single dime to these owners.

    Every single one of them can easily afford to finance their own buildings. No where else in the entire world do cities and towns pay for rich sport team’s stadiums.

  13. xbam says: Jan 18, 2016 11:08 AM

    the public need to get over “Civic Pride” the NFL owners have made billions off of it…its WAY overrated…

  14. dietrich43 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:08 AM

    “You’ve got some intangibles that you can’t really put a price tag on.”

    I think the County did. About $1.1 billion over 27 years. Hope you like those intangibles, because that’s a lot of tangibles you could have purchased instead.

    Don’t forget that the County tried to sue the Bengals for failing to field a competitive team. Also, tax revenues have been much lower than ‘expected’ (it’s always less than the proponents predict), putting the County in a financial crunch over the years.

  15. granadafan says: Jan 18, 2016 11:12 AM

    Wait, so cities are being extorted to pay for the teams’ operational costs now? What’s next, paying players salaries and providing private jets for the owner?

    These politicians who made this deal should be recalled for financial negligence. Civic pride is a BS excuse while the taxpayers get taken to the cleaners. Giving free money to multi billionaires while teachers of our children struggle to make ends meet.

  16. stew48 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:18 AM

    In Ohio, school taxes are not controlled by the county. It seems no one has figured out the problem with large city public schools, but the problems have absolutely nothing to do with NFL teams. And, those “large city” school problems are not limited to just the large systems, as is evidenced by surrounding districts here where I live.

  17. guyjuneguyjune says: Jan 18, 2016 11:19 AM

    Spanos…spend the $100,000,000 given you by the NFL owners to upgrade Qualcomm. Renew the lease and keep working on a new stadium. You don’t want to play in the L.A. Coliseum for the next 4 years.

  18. donl517 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:20 AM

    Looking at this from the other point of view:

    The cities want the tax revenue generated by the stadiums, but they don’t want to help build them. These stadiums create countless jobs throughout these cities. Hotels, restaurants, and other entertainment industry all benefit from their existence. So the billionaire NFL owners do have leverage, because it is not just the cost or the revenue of the stadium we are talking about.

    If not for involving the cities in the revenue you would probably never be able to get a stadium or arena built anywhere. If they did build one on their own dime the cities would tax them to death!

  19. The Almighty Cabbage says: Jan 18, 2016 11:21 AM

    All the while, people live in cardboard boxes. Children are cold, with no coat to put on and hungry with no food to eat. Old people eat dog food and go without medications. I’m very much ashamed of the human race.

    The right and the left are controlled by the same corporate masters. As long as they keep us fighting amongst ourselves, they do whatever they want. They each blame the “other” side and people refuse to see it.

    I apologize to each and every one of you for the mess being left behind by my generation. Sincerely. We’ve made a mess that you’ll have to deal with for generations. Be smarter than us; it’s your only chance.

  20. SparkyGump says: Jan 18, 2016 11:22 AM

    It’s socialism for the already rich and their corporations and capitalism for the rest of us. Serfs up!

  21. dccrescenzi says: Jan 18, 2016 11:22 AM

    There has never been and never will be a tax funded stadium in the most liberal state in the union. Billy Bulger yes Whitey’s brother would never sighn off on any money directly to the owners .That set the stage for the most bottom line (some would say cheapest) owner to build the “Garden” .Next up was Kraft and all he got was the same as the Jacobs got infrastructure only.The Red Sox who have always been something of a favorite son got zilch and decide to renovate on their own dime .Fenway should be replaced but either John Henry foots the bill or the next owner will. The guys in Albany ,NY decided to that the billions were well spent but that is driven by redevelopment not a need to keep a team .

  22. pastabelly says: Jan 18, 2016 11:25 AM

    At the very least, the city should have required the Bengals to sell naming rights to the stadium and have those funds reimburse the city. In a small city like Cincinnati, maybe that’s $4 to $5 million, but to let the Bengals get away with nothing is not being responsible to taxpayers.

  23. HankTheDog says: Jan 18, 2016 11:30 AM

    This is how the local politicians (bloodsuckers) do it. A team leaves and they use the fans/taxpayers’ longing for football in their city to stick them with the bill and make bad deals. It happened in St. Louis in the early to mid 90s and that’s how the city got stuck with the dome which was out of style the day it opened.

    Memo to all NFL fans: NFL Sunday ticket and the associated packages are awesome. You don’t need a football team in your home area to enjoy NFL.

  24. nhpats says: Jan 18, 2016 11:33 AM

    Bob Kraft paid for his own stadium. Just one more reason to love the Patriots.

  25. franklinstking says: Jan 18, 2016 11:34 AM

    “Well how do the Richmond Bengals or the Mobile Bengals sound?!? No?!? Wichita Bengals?” Maybe between the three they can come up with enough in taxes to support a stadium. The WichRichMob Bengals!

  26. ninerfan81 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:38 AM

    that’s disgusting

  27. joecool16 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:42 AM

    There’s something wrong with society when poor people who actually need public assistance are treated as the lowest form of humanity, and a billionaire business owner who receives a disgusting amount of public assistance is treated as shrewd businessman. Maybe it’s just me, but I thought there was such a thing as right and wrong. A billionaire receiving free money, welfare, public assistance is just plain wrong!!!! The rich and wealthy who receive monies which they have not earned are an absolute disgrace!!

  28. jimmysee says: Jan 18, 2016 11:44 AM

    That’s a lot of chili.

  29. peytonwantsaflag says: Jan 18, 2016 11:46 AM

    Cincinnati should serve as the cautionary tale for EVERY city trying to keep an NFL team. There isn’t enough money for police officers, but we can buy the Bengals (and Reds) a new state of the art scoreboard.
    ———————————
    more than a little hyperbolic – also the Reds scoreboard was bought and paid for by P&G

  30. jgedgar70 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:46 AM

    “The NFL no longer can use Los Angeles for leverage. But L.A. more than served its purpose.”

    No worries. They can now use St. Louis for leverage. It’s been done at least twice before. And as soon as the Chargers give up and join the Rams in LA, then San Diego can be used for leverage. And we haven’t even talked about London.

    The NFL will never see anything wrong with telling mid-size cities that it’s their job to pay for stadiums, no matter what damage it does to the fiscal structure of those cities.

    The only way this cycle will ever stop is if a city faced with losing its team to St. Louis/San Diego says, “pound sand, we’re not doing it” and then St. Louis/San Diego says, “pound sand, we’re not doing it either,” forcing the owner of the offending team to go ahead and build the stadium himself.

  31. peopletrains says: Jan 18, 2016 11:47 AM

    What is more sad? NFL owners walking all over the taxpayer or so many taxpayers that happily oblige?

  32. doggeatdogg says: Jan 18, 2016 11:48 AM

    “My gut says it probably hasn’t generated the rate of return on investment that other projects do. From a civic pride standpoint, people are excited about [the Bengals]. You’ve got some intangibles that you can’t really put a price tag on.”

    In other words, they will get a new stadium later on even thought they know it will have no return on the city’s investment.

  33. edukator4 says: Jan 18, 2016 11:53 AM

    new stadiums every 25 years? you go to watch the game lot enjoy the stadium

  34. peytonwantsaflag says: Jan 18, 2016 11:54 AM

    Hate to defend Brown here BUT I’m going to have to I think. Brown never played hardball in this deal, never threatened to leave. It never got to that point because the morons in Hamilton county can’t negotiate. They are buffoons, the whole lot of them. They’ve wasted years, and millions of dollars on a so-so riverfront project and years and millions of dollars on a streetcar nobody wants.

    Brown’s a business man and as such there’s certainly a lot of slimyness there but it takes two to tango.

  35. bengalsfan2079 says: Jan 18, 2016 12:00 PM

    Sounds like a case of corporations exploiting its people who knew? I don’t mean to bring politics in this but now people are saying we should feel sorry for oil companies that they’re going bankrupt when they gouged us for years. Seems like the Bengals did the same thing to Hamilton County which thankfully I don’t live in that county so it doesn’t affect me. Cincinnati is actually a very booming city right now it’s just once you get out of the downtown area it’s a pretty poor area. Until people say enough is enough we’re never going to see the end of corporations running the country.

  36. awdlmd says: Jan 18, 2016 12:02 PM

    As a resident of Hamilton County this makes me sick. I am not a Bengals fan and all this money just enriches a man who was born into his fortune.

  37. contract says: Jan 18, 2016 12:03 PM

    Only $1.1 billion? You should check out the hosing Miami is getting on the Marlins stadium … $2.4 billion over 40 years.

  38. cupquest says: Jan 18, 2016 12:05 PM

    That franchise should have been boarded up long ago. Last weekend would never have happened.

  39. thefatlazygamer says: Jan 18, 2016 12:05 PM

    Ghetto Playland

  40. Flyover States Hate West Coast Winners says: Jan 18, 2016 12:07 PM

    therealraider says:
    Jan 18, 2016 11:02 AM
    Hamilton County, Ohio has come up with $920 million since 2000, but, Alameda County, California still owes more than half on a $200 million renovation that was completed in 1995. Oakland/Alameda has to be the most poorly managed City and County in America.

    ++++++++++++++++
    There’s two ways to look at that. There’s your way, and then there’s this way:
    They are smart enough to refuse to pay it, or to drag out paying it at all costs. By refusing to pay it, they get to spend that money elsewhere.

    As a sidenote – Alameda’s deal was only five years before the Hamilton County deal. How come they didn’t get hosed for a cool $1.1 billion, like the esteemed people of Hamilton County, Ohio? Makes you think.

  41. cardinalsfan20 says: Jan 18, 2016 12:08 PM

    The fake outrage machine cranks up when “public” funds for stadiums are involved.

    Can’t pay police! Bad schools! Starving children!

    Of course, these commentors do not really care about those issues. But man, it sure is fun to be outraged!!

  42. bengaldiplomat says: Jan 18, 2016 12:14 PM

    Just read the article on the WCPO website. Poorly written particularly in calculating the amount. Remember, the sales tax (half of sales tax money comes from out of town) covers both the Reds and Bengals stadiums.

    One needs to subtract $100 million from the Bengals side due to the desire to move the stadium one block west to allow for “The Banks” development. This took the stadium off of county owned land and onto private land and left those property owners with a lot of leverage for the sale price.

    Secondly, at total of $53 million comes from the sales tax as a contribution to the Cincinnati Public Schools which was used to back bonds for re-building most of the district’s buildings. This article doesn’t allocate any of this to the Reds stadium.

    Third, where is the research comparing the building and operating costs of the other stadiums built at the same time? Think Pittsburgh, Philly, Denver, Tampa….. It is easy to pluck a number out of the air and then assign judgements about cities, their schools, poverty without looking at the bigger picture.

  43. mwatts1 says: Jan 18, 2016 12:15 PM

    These are very wealthy- smart men and women running this league. Until THE AMERICAN VOTER can stop voting “Yes” on these bills, nothing is going to change.

  44. doctorrustbelt says: Jan 18, 2016 12:17 PM

    I didn’t mention this terrible stadium deal because I have so often over the last many years (on ESPN and PFT).

    TERRIBLE DEAL.

    GOOGLE: bob bedinghaus (I still don’t know how he isn’t in prison)

  45. briang123 says: Jan 18, 2016 12:19 PM

    People forget that in 1996 there were serious discussions about moving the Eagles to Los Angeles and the Bengals to Philly. Go through the Cincinnati Enquirer archives to read the story.

  46. boltdaddy says: Jan 18, 2016 12:21 PM

    With L.A. lost as leverage (extortion) the billionaires will be writing bigger checks than ever.

    Thank you Stan for leading this new trend in NFL team owner fiscal responsibility. Stan has ruined the argrument his frat brothers have so heavily relied upon. But…The League had a hell of a welfare run.

  47. docboss says: Jan 18, 2016 12:26 PM

    After spending 17 million on failed (rigged) stadium bid, and the league’s shameless denigration of the metropolitan area, the politicians and citizens of STL will not allow the NFL to use them as leverage for another bad owner.
    San Antonio and London are the new LA. I wonder if the NFL and the Yorks would ever let another team in the SF area if the Raiders leave.

  48. simon94022 says: Jan 18, 2016 12:27 PM

    “My gut says it probably hasn’t generated the rate of return on investment that other projects do. From a civic pride standpoint, people are excited about [the Bengals]. ”

    This is an honest comment. If you want to spend tax dollars for civic pride, fair enough. Make that argument.

    Just don’t claim a football stadium will generate massive economic activity, jobs and tax revenue that will justify the financial outlay by the city or state. There isn’t a single instance where that has happened. Ever. These deals are always about civic pride, and only about civic pride.

  49. bubbybrisket says: Jan 18, 2016 12:29 PM

    PFT…where its cool to hate billionaires, yet defend Capitalism.

    You lot are some of the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever seen. If you don’t like it, move! Go to Canada! If you like Capitalism then you have to like billionaires.

    Don’t be jealous, they aren’t REQUIRED to pay a single penny on a stadium.

  50. glutenman says: Jan 18, 2016 12:33 PM

    Bengals are building a perennial contender. They’ll stay in Cincinnati forever and hire Burfict as coordinator just to make the fans smile

  51. cross300 says: Jan 18, 2016 12:52 PM

    Great ivestment so far. Zero playoff wins. A Billion doesnt buy you what it use to.

  52. returntoexcellence says: Jan 18, 2016 12:53 PM

    One city has consistently over the years told the NFL to shove it when it comes to taxpayer money. Because of that, we lost our two teams over twenty years ago. When it was time to expand, this same city lost a bid for an expansion team to Houston because once again we told the NFL to shove it when it came to taxpayer stadiums. Looks like we’re finally getting a team back and it is going to be privately funded because once again, this city told the NFL to shove it when it comes to tax money for football palaces. That city as you’ve already guessed is Los Angeles. And I truly wonder how many of you posting here about how disgusted you are by cities giving into billionaire NFL owners are the same people that say Los Angeles doesn’t deserve a team because they did nothing to keep the two they had and won’t support a new team because they’re doing nothing to work with the NFL now. Which apparently is seen as a lack of support for the sport. So which is it folks?

  53. mackcarrington says: Jan 18, 2016 12:54 PM

    When Los Angeles and Anaheim held the line on publicly financed new stadiums and their owners took their teams away to cities who would tap into taxpayers wallets, the narrative became “LA can’t support pro football. The NFL failed there.”
    Now when your city asks you, the taxpayer, to help “support” your local team, you whine about “welfare for billionaires”. Point of fact is that any franchise that has moved in the last 50 years has moved because of stadium or arena issues. Nobody ever accused Cleveland or Baltimore or Houston of not being able to support pro football.
    It was the “greedy owners”. After those teams left town, the leaders of those cities then decided to find money to build new playpens for the “greedy owners. The citizens of those cities like to say it was their “passion” for football that made their leadership relent and dig into their pockets. So please don’t whine and cry when your municipality asks you for more money. They are only giving in to your “passion” for football.

  54. bonniebengal says: Jan 18, 2016 1:08 PM

    glutenman says:
    Jan 18, 2016 12:33 PM
    Bengals are building a perennial contender. They’ll stay in Cincinnati forever and hire Burfict as coordinator just to make the fans smile

    ________
    If Porter can be a coach, then anybody can.

  55. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 18, 2016 1:24 PM

    Another thing. Not only are these disgusting bags of greed that own the teams continually trying to extort billions from cities and states, on top of their already vast annual revenue they now are making likely several billion more in profits from the shadow ownership of the daily fantasy leagues.

    Yet the still aren’t “making enough money”

    Pay for your own buildings you scum

  56. granadafan says: Jan 18, 2016 1:28 PM

    boltdaddy says:
    Jan 18, 2016 12:21 PM
    With L.A. lost as leverage (extortion) the billionaires will be writing bigger checks than ever.

    Thank you Stan for leading this new trend in NFL team owner fiscal responsibility. Stan has ruined the argrument his frat brothers have so heavily relied upon. But…The League had a hell of a welfare run.
    =======================================
    Don’t give Stan too much credit. He still refused to pay for his own stadium in St Louis.

    For other posters, stop peddling the outdated and highly exaggerated claims that “countless jobs” justifies using public money to build stadiums for revenue. The vast majority of those jobs are part time (game day only), minimum wage, and with ZERO benefits. Those jobs would be there regardless of whether the owner built it himself.

    It’s really all about so-called civic pride, which is absurd when you’re shelling out billions to a multi billionaire.

  57. carsons401k says: Jan 18, 2016 1:56 PM

    Go Bengals!

  58. carsons401k says: Jan 18, 2016 2:16 PM

    We can all agree that the sources used for this story are a lot more reliable than the sources used for the one suggesting that Mike Brown voted down the LA deal (he actually voted for it).

  59. yooperman says: Jan 18, 2016 2:38 PM

    Would not there be just as much civic pride and jobs created if the owner payed instead of the taxpayers?
    In fact, there would be even more jobs because the cities would have that tax money to hire teachers, firemen etc. This would add even more taxes for the cities to spend.

  60. carsons401k says: Jan 18, 2016 2:53 PM

    Before you decide where to place your scorn, consider: Public officials are supposed to represent the public. NFL team owners are supposed to represent?

  61. arcross12042004scorp15 says: Jan 18, 2016 3:23 PM

    Refurbish stadiums !
    It is much cheaper to refurbish the stadiums then build new ones. If the county / state match the owners spending $ 100 Million each you can have a great stadium.
    Why build new roads, parking lots, mass transit lines etc ? What is the stadium for ?
    Watch 10 games a year ! Spend a Billion Dollars on a stadium that is only going to be used for football for 25 years, that works out to 4 million per game, which seems ridiculous.

  62. coloradotennisfan says: Jan 18, 2016 3:27 PM

    These subsidies are disgusting, increasing profits to owners and salaries to players. Both players and owners have very high earnings so the subsidies are provided to those who do not need them in any way.

    The fundamental problem is the power of cartels. Taxpayers are pitted against two powerful cartels: owners cartel and players cartel. Taxpayers need protection for the combined market power of these two cartels. Subsidies to stadiums should be banned or at least strongly limited. Let owners and players finance the stadiums through increased ticket prices and TV rights. However, owners and players will discover that markets have limits so ticket prices and TV right prices cannot just be increased without limits.

    I do not begrudge owners or players, but I am against subsidies to increase profits and earnings.

  63. philtration says: Jan 18, 2016 3:40 PM

    I used to work at Soldier Field as a teen in the mid to late 70s.
    The place was very old then and it was obvious that it need a replacement.
    Even though the city used hotel tax money to kick in for part of the renovation they screwed up by gutting Soldier Field reducing the stadiums seating capacity to the lowest in the NFL.
    The changes also cost the stadium to loose its landmark status.
    Granted that $660 million is a lot less than what you are seeing now but Qwest Field (now CenturyLink) was built at the very same time as the renovation and it cost $430 million.
    To blow over $200 million dollars extra to retro fit a stadium that can never even host a Super Bowl instead of just starting from scratch left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth.
    Forget trying to keep up with the Joneses (no pun intended) What is the stadium in Seattle lacking?

    For a Billion dollars you can come up with a lot of ways to create civic pride better than building a stadium that sits empty and locked to the public 99% of the time.

  64. intrafinesse says: Jan 18, 2016 4:50 PM

    I love it.
    Of course I don’t live there.
    I love seeing the stupidity of these cities , subsidizing these owners.

    I’d be sad if my team leaves town, but then again, tickets and PSLs have priced me out of season tickets.
    So if they leave, I’ll follow a new team.

    One more thing – if a city said to an owner
    “How about this, instead of us spending 300MM to renovate your stadium, how about we write you a check for 100MM?”

    Cheaper for the city, and the owner gets his money up front, and doesn’t have to share it with the NFL.

    Tax payers would hate that of course. So I’d just have a higher tax on things the team sells, to get the money back.
    Make the attending fans pay all of it.

  65. nicofthenorthstar says: Jan 18, 2016 7:43 PM

    Corruption is alive and well in the good ol’ US of A. Handouts for the fattest pigs at the trough. Because there is no such thing as “enough” when it comes to the one-percenters.
    Hey, someone’s gotta foot the bill for all those wonderful campaign commercials, right?!

  66. raiderapologist says: Jan 18, 2016 10:00 PM

    My gut says 1.1 billion is a number an accountant could explain to you, Commissioner.

  67. bigoldfatguy says: Jan 18, 2016 11:05 PM

    My understanding is the Bengals have internally already decided there’s no way they’ll stay in Cincinnati when the lease expires. Take it for what it’s worth.

  68. sergeant2 says: Jan 19, 2016 12:10 AM

    What happened in Cincinnati is textbook cigar smoke filled backroom deal making, in other words politicians were bought off. For example, an influential member on the Hamilton County Board Of Commissioners, that is largely credited with getting the one sided deal done is now on the Bengals payroll and has been since shortly after the deal was done. The former board commissioner claims his current position as a Bengals employee has nothing to do with his work to influence the passage of what is basically the biggest daylight robbery of a city in the modern era. Who Dey!

  69. tralfaz1127 says: Jan 19, 2016 5:38 AM

    Columbus will gladly take them.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!