BY GEOFF HOBSON and LUCY MAY
The Cincinnati Enquirer
The Cincinnati Reds and Major League Baseball have expressed concern to local officials that the baseball team's stadium situation is being dictated by Hamilton County's agreements with the National Football League Bengals.
Reds Managing Executive John Allen and principal owner Marge Schott sent a letter Monday to the county commissioners following a March 6 negotiating session.
In that meeting, Mr. Allen said, he was told Hamilton County has entered into a verbal agreement with the Bengals that if the Reds choose the site between Cinergy Field and Riverfront Coliseum, ''no construction can begin until the Bengals are out of'' Cinergy Field. The Bengals lease expires after the 1999 season.
But Hamilton County Commission President Bob Bedinghaus, who was not at the meeting, said Tuesday night that no such verbal agreement has been reached.
''There are issues relating to existing leases that need to be discussed with all parties involved at Cinergy Field,'' Mr. Bedinghaus said. ''There has been no discussion with the Bengals at this point relating to that.''
When asked whether the Bengals were driving decisions about the Reds' new ballpark, Mr. Bedinghaus replied, ''That's absolutely wrong. The Reds just need to tell us what they want to do.''
Mr. Allen said he was encouraged to hear Mr. Bedinghaus say no deal with the Bengals had been reached on the site between Cinergy Field and Riverfront Coliseum.
''That was not the understanding of our negotiators, but if that's what Bob is saying, that's good to hear,'' Mr. Allen said.
But Mrs. Schott and Mr. Allen are concerned about the verbal agreement the Bengals have with the county that no baseball stadium can be built just west of the Roebling Suspension Bridge, next to the new football stadium between Central Avenue and Elm Street. Mr. Allen said Major League Baseball officials are also concerned about the Bengals' role in negotiations.
''A very key point in our letter was the concern that another organization would control the timing and site of construction of our stadium,'' Mr. Allen said. ''We felt the best thing was to sit down with everyone involved and find out how these decisions are being made.''
The county has said publicly for months that no stadium would go west of the Suspension Bridge, citing development reasons.
''It shouldn't be a surprise to them. We've been saying we preferred it since at least January 1996,'' Mr. Allen said.
''They asked us again last week, and we told them. When they said 'No' to west of the bridge, we asked why, and they told us about the Bengals' agreement. We were appalled that a team with 10 games would be dictating to the team with 81 dates.''
The Bengals worry construction of a Reds ballpark on Main Street near the river might mean displacing football season ticket-holders if the bowl of the current stadium were invaded.
Under the teams' current leases, no stadium construction can take place without consent of both teams. The Reds blocked a bid by the Bengals and the city a few years ago to put in luxury suites.
Mr. Allen went public with these very private negotiations Monday, when County Commissioner John Dowlin said the county had drafted a response to the Reds' letter.
''We're telling (Mrs. Schott) what Dave (Krings, county administrator) has been saying for months,'' Mr. Dowlin said. ''It's not going west of the bridge. Dave has been telling you right. The city planners are saving it for development.''
Mr. Krings stressed he hasn't drafted any letter to the Reds.
''I have not been authorized to send out a letter.''
Recent stories
MAYOR SUPPORTS BROADWAY March 5, 1997
DESPITE FLOOD, REDS DON'T WAVER FROM RIVER March 5, 1997
BASEBALL ON MAIN PROPOSED Feb. 26, 1997
WEDGE SITE GETS BOOST FROM COUNTY Feb. 22, 1997
REDS, COUNTY RESUME STADIUM TALKS Feb. 19, 1997
ONLY CRIME IS NOT CONSIDERING BROADWAY Feb. 18, 1997
RIVER SITE OR LAWSUIT Feb. 15, 1997
REDS ARE READY TO PLAY HARDBALL Feb. 15, 1997
SCHOTT THREATENS TO MOVE IF REDS AREN'T ON RIVER Feb. 14, 1997
