If the Brook Park plan is to cost 3-3.5 billion couldn't this money be enough to turn over the lakefront site and all the lakefront land over to The Haslam Group to develop. That would be a win win for all. The infrastructure and land bridge already has some serious money to make that part a reality

Let's be real here. The BP move is nothing but a way for Haslam to leverage public money for his pockets. We're not asking for this. HE wants it. Hell, we're not even asking for a new stadium on the lakefront. These new facilites are for the owners pocketbooks, not the fans comfort. But as long as cities pay the owners will play(us).

It’s not like the first court judgement is the end. They filed in federal court, which means it could theoretically make its way to the Supreme Court (assuming they would take the case). City probably won’t win but it will take a long time. Even being heard in federal court will take time. Can CLE get an injunction to prevent them from moving while the issue is adjudicated?

10 minutes ago, cadmen said:

Let's be real here. The BP move is nothing but a way for Haslam to leverage public money for his pockets. We're not asking for this. HE wants it. Hell, we're not even asking for a new stadium on the lakefront. These new facilites are for the owners pocketbooks, not the fans comfort. But as long as cities pay the owners will play(us).

I don't think the Haslams: 1) trying to bring a world class facility to NEO, and 2) also trying to get a return on their (anywhere from $1.2B - $2.4B) private investment has to be mutually exclusive from one another.   Both can be true and that is capitalism.  Show me someone else who personally has invested north of $1B-$2B on a project anywhere in the state of Ohio?  Those opportunities are once in a lifetime  and you shouldn't dismiss that out of hand so easily.

 

I wish public subsidies didn't have to be used for such facilities but it has become all too common in recent decades and if you want professional sports in your city then you need to figure out some semblance of a public/private partnership.   Otherwise kiss the professional sports bye bye and some of you may be ok with that,  to each their own.   That said, those of us that are Browns fans and remember October, 1995, value the things that professional sports bring to this region.   Despite the weekly torture!

 

Finally until the details on the public financing side become available, I for one will keep an open mind.   I'm curious to learn of the "innovative funding mechanisms" in lieu of more traditional subsidies born by the public as a whole.   Frankly, I'm surprised no one has dug into how much the Browns are planning on raising through PSL's, Brookpark (and County) admissions tax, etc.   We continue to hear a TIF district will be used in some form, but the PSL and tax on those who attend can easily raise a couple hundred million and frankly I don't see how anyone can argue with making those that pay to attend the events bear a portion of the public side share.

7 minutes ago, coneflower said:

It’s not like the first court judgement is the end. They filed in federal court, which means it could theoretically make its way to the Supreme Court (assuming they would take the case). City probably won’t win but it will take a long time. Even being heard in federal court will take time. Can CLE get an injunction to prevent them from moving while the issue is adjudicated?

Thanks for reinforcing my point.   If the "City probably won't win" why would you tie up city resources and taxpayer dollars for multiple years?    JFC.

Just now, goozer said:

Thanks for reinforcing my point.   If the "City probably won't win" why would you tie up city resources and taxpayer dollars for multiple years?    JFC.

 

maybe the city is banking on the fact the Haslem era Browns can’t win at anything. 

 

I kid. 

12 minutes ago, goozer said:

Thanks for reinforcing my point.   If the "City probably won't win" why would you tie up city resources and taxpayer dollars for multiple years?    JFC.

Because their objective is not to defend the law but to make it painful for the team to leave. You don’t have to like it but it’s a reasonable strategy since they don’t many other tools left. Jimmy would for sure do something like this if the shoe was on the other foot. 

Edited October 25, 2024Oct 25 by coneflower

A city’s job is not to defend the law, but ‘to make it painful for the team to leave’.  
 

I had to type that vs quote your post just to believe what I read.   So you are advocating the city flush taxpayer dollars down the toilet just to be a pain in the rear end?   A public entity has no fiduciary responsibility to its residents who pay the tax dollars?  
 

One thing you are right on is I don’t have to like it.  And I won’t.  Wow.  Just wow. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, goozer said:

A city’s job is not to defend the law, but ‘to make it painful for the team to leave’.  
 

I had to type that vs quote your post just to believe what I read.   So you are advocating the city flush taxpayer dollars down the toilet just to be a pain in the rear end?   A public entity has no fiduciary responsibility to its residents who pay the tax dollars?  
 

One thing you are right on is I don’t have to like it.  And I won’t.  Wow.  Just wow.

The city has an obligation to protect the interests of their residents. They believe the team leaving the city is a threat on a number of levels—tax revenue, drawing away public resources, decreased prestige, etc. Right now they are using the law as written to protect their residents but it has the double benefit of making it so painful the Browns decide staying is a better path. This is business and if I am a resident I want my government using every tool available to protect our interests. You for some reason think the city should roll over. 

Edited October 25, 2024Oct 25 by coneflower

It's honestly quite ironic that Jimmy will be fighting tooth and nail to make the "Modell Law" unconstitutional, when it is literally the reason why he owns the Crew

7 hours ago, goozer said:

I don't think the Haslams: 1) trying to bring a world class facility to NEO, and 2) also trying to get a return on their (anywhere from $1.2B - $2.4B) private investment has to be mutually exclusive from one another.   Both can be true and that is capitalism.  Show me someone else who personally has invested north of $1B-$2B on a project anywhere in the state of Ohio?  Those opportunities are once in a lifetime  and you shouldn't dismiss that out of hand so easily.

 

I wish public subsidies didn't have to be used for such facilities but it has become all too common in recent decades and if you want professional sports in your city then you need to figure out some semblance of a public/private partnership.   Otherwise kiss the professional sports bye bye and some of you may be ok with that,  to each their own.   That said, those of us that are Browns fans and remember October, 1995, value the things that professional sports bring to this region.   Despite the weekly torture!

 

Finally until the details on the public financing side become available, I for one will keep an open mind.   I'm curious to learn of the "innovative funding mechanisms" in lieu of more traditional subsidies born by the public as a whole.   Frankly, I'm surprised no one has dug into how much the Browns are planning on raising through PSL's, Brookpark (and County) admissions tax, etc.   We continue to hear a TIF district will be used in some form, but the PSL and tax on those who attend can easily raise a couple hundred million and frankly I don't see how anyone can argue with making those that pay to attend the events bear a portion of the public side share.

SoFi Stadium was completely paid for by Stan Kroenke with all private money. This stadium was $5 billion dollars.  The Haslams have the money if they truly cared what they want to build. Nobody in the public sector were consulted or asked to design a structure the taxpayers couldn't afford this expenditure.  Billionaire's projecting what others cant afford is just wrong. No public financing should be given for a private investment

10 hours ago, coneflower said:

The city has an obligation to protect the interests of their residents. They believe the team leaving the city is a threat on a number of levels—tax revenue, drawing away public resources, decreased prestige, etc. Right now they are using the law as written to protect their residents but it has the double benefit of making it so painful the Browns decide staying is a better path. This is business and if I am a resident I want my government using every tool available to protect our interests. You for some reason think the city should roll over. 

 

Exactly- friction and delay are incredibly useful even when you aren't likely to win.  You never know what happens.  Maybe Haslam decides to give up on the idea and retire, a new ownership group steps forward, etc.

 

Not that I can think of any other prominent examples of someone using those tactics right now to tremendous effect.

Wasn't there a case where a city (Seattle?) got an injunction against a big employer from locating to a non-union state solely because it would essentially be union busting?

 

I can't find that article anywhere this morning.

4 hours ago, dave2017 said:

SoFi Stadium was completely paid for by Stan Kroenke with all private money. This stadium was $5 billion dollars.  The Haslams have the money if they truly cared what they want to build. Nobody in the public sector were consulted or asked to design a structure the taxpayers couldn't afford this expenditure.  Billionaire's projecting what others cant afford is just wrong. No public financing should be given for a private investment

True. Plus Jimmy knows how much the NFL will help with “private money” in the form of easy loans/contributions - once Jimmy completes HSG’s messy public divorce with Cleveland- as he knows SoFi got at least $900 million from the NFL

 https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-owners-approve-lending-rams-another-500-million-for-stadium

not to mention the NFL built their new 500,000 square foot Media HQ next door:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-09-08/nfl-media-moves-to-inglewood-sofi-stadium

 

2 hours ago, X said:

 

Exactly- friction and delay are incredibly useful even when you aren't likely to win.  You never know what happens.  Maybe Haslam decides to give up on the idea and retire, a new ownership group steps forward, etc.

 

Not that I can think of any other prominent examples of someone using those tactics right now to tremendous effect.

Anything could happen! Maybe it’s particularly icy on the sidewalk one morning when Jimmy and Dee are due in court…I’m just saying it’s possible! 

2 hours ago, X said:

 

Exactly- friction and delay are incredibly useful even when you aren't likely to win.  You never know what happens.  Maybe Haslam decides to give up on the idea and retire, a new ownership group steps forward, etc.

 

Not that I can think of any other prominent examples of someone using those tactics right now to tremendous effect.

HSG hierarchy appears to be full of people from legal backgrounds, they even have their own general counsel. I'm curious as to whether they also pursue this from within to save money as opposed to spending millions on high end representation.

The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and Bibb needs to back out this Modell law nonsense.

 

There are far more critical local issues demanding Bibb's attention and city resources; trying to enforce a seemingly intentionally flawed law is not one of them.

2 hours ago, Willo said:

True. Plus Jimmy knows how much the NFL will help with “private money” in the form of easy loans/contributions - once Jimmy completes HSG’s messy public divorce with Cleveland- as he knows SoFi got at least $900 million from the NFL

 https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/report-owners-approve-lending-rams-another-500-million-for-stadium

not to mention the NFL built their new 500,000 square foot Media HQ next door:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-09-08/nfl-media-moves-to-inglewood-sofi-stadium

 

This is the stuff that annoys me the most about the HSG. For all we know, the NFL, sponsorships, and other deals could be 90% of the private money for the stadium, with Jimmy only paying $100 million out of his own pocket. 

 

Also, the fact that they keep claiming they will be paying for $2 billion of the $3-3.5 billion in development since they're supposedly going to build $1-1.5 billion in development. Which is something I think most of us on here do not trust. They're just trying to make it look HSG is going to pay 60-70% of the costs. If you consider my first paragraph and also don't trust them to build any of phase 2, HSG could only be funding 5-20% of the stadium costs and get every penny from it and the parking. 

 

What would be funny is if the city and county were to say "We'll give you $1 billion, but you have to show all details of your funding and that the Haslam's alone are at least matching the $1 billion number for stadium construction. And if you don't hit at least $1 billion in additional developments within 10-15 years, you owe us the $1 billion back plus interest, or at least to get it to the 65/35 private/public financing you're currently promising."

 

We're meeting all of their demands, and trust that what they're promising to build will happen. If they are being honest about Brook Park, this would be accepted immediately. But I would bet there is absolutely no way HSG would accept that deal. 

Edited October 25, 2024Oct 25 by PlanCleveland
Typo

11 minutes ago, TBideon said:

The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and Bibb needs to back out this Modell law nonsense.

 

There are far more critical local issues demanding Bibb's attention and city resources; trying to enforce a seemingly intentionally flawed law is not one of them.

Can’t pick and choose what laws to enforce. Some would say “executing” the laws enacted by the legislative branch is one of the main duties of the “executive“ branch. 

Of course we can. That happens all the time.

 

Otherwise, court dockets would be filled for decades.

57 minutes ago, TBideon said:

The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and Bibb needs to back out this Modell law nonsense.

 

There are far more critical local issues demanding Bibb's attention and city resources; trying to enforce a seemingly intentionally flawed law is not one of them.

 

It's worth the squeeze if they secure a resolution that has better terms for the city. Maybe in the end they don't keep the team on the lakefront but the Browns offer some concessions to get CLE to stand down. Funding to demolish the stadium or material support to lakefront redevelopment, etc.? I don't understand why anyone would expect the city to give up without a fight. 

With all the momentum on Scranton Pennisula, I wish they could have put the stadium there. Under the river rail connection ( a la Pittsburgh). Pipe dream I know. But I think the skyline around tower city is gonna look a little different in the next 5-10 years and the views would have been incredible.

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and Bibb needs to back out this Modell law nonsense.

 

There are far more critical local issues demanding Bibb's attention and city resources; trying to enforce a seemingly intentionally flawed law is not one of them.

 

Everyone fighting this is a politician, if they just let the Browns go quietly do you really think that'd go over well w/their constituency/next election?

 

Even if 0.00039% of Cleveland residents go to the games it's still bad PR to 'lose' the Browns. 

 

Anywho, Kazy is the one that initiated this with his preemptive press conference months ago, Bibb is just following through on council's desire to enforce the law.

Do I think residents in Ohio City or Central care that much about the Browns moving to Brookpark? No, I think they have far more concerns with schools, safety, city investments, roads, etc.

 

This isn't 1995. It's a very different city, region, and Browns frankly.

 

Bibb's focus needs to be on the West Parks and Glenvilles, especially when he has such a losing argument.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2024Oct 25 by TBideon

9 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Do I think residents in Ohio City or Central care that much about the Browns moving to Brookpark? No, I think they have far more concerns with schools, safety, city investments, roads, etc.

 

This isn't 1995. It's a very different city, region, and Browns frankly.

 

Bibb's focus needs to be on the West Parks and Glenvilles, especially when he has such a losing argument.

 

 

Bibb and Ronayne can do both at the same time and yes people of all socio-economic classes care about the Browns staying.  We finally have leadership who appear to get it and want to reverse Cleveland's misfortunes and understand the need to fight to keep our remaining major assets like the Browns and their positive revenue streams that support the Cleveland social safety net and quality of life concerns above. Plus we need to keep and build on such draws if we want the nascent boomerang Clevelander trend to continue and at the same time begin to attract more and more of the expected climate refugees and a bigger share of the millions of newcomers who have streamed across the border from all over the world and try to rebuild our population.

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

 

It's worth the squeeze if they secure a resolution that has better terms for the city. Maybe in the end they don't keep the team on the lakefront but the Browns offer some concessions to get CLE to stand down. Funding to demolish the stadium or material support to lakefront redevelopment, etc.? I don't understand why anyone would expect the city to give up without a fight. 

Especially when Haslam benefited from the very same law to buy the Crew.    The city should most definitely try to use this as leverage for concessions.   There is also a common wisdom that the Brookpark deal is far from done and things could shift back to the Lakefront or other site within the City of Cleveland before this is over.   Until Haslam transfers money and actually buys the property in Brookpark, I still think it's a toss up. 

I'm extremely biased towards the post office site because I wanted the stadium to move there from the beginning; however, I wonder if that site has become more appealing with the impending investments that will be made for the soccer stadium. I know that parcel is smaller and offers less development and parking revenue opportunities for Jimmy, but I would think he will be able to demand higher rents for anything he puts there than in Brook Park. And with the soccer stadium it wont be on as much of an island on the other side of I-90.  

 

And if Jimmy really does want to play developer then offer to lease him the stadium site for $1 for 50 years if he pays for demolition of the old stadium. 

20 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

I'm extremely biased towards the post office site because I wanted the stadium to move there from the beginning; however, I wonder if that site has become more appealing with the impending investments that will be made for the soccer stadium. I know that parcel is smaller and offers less development and parking revenue opportunities for Jimmy, but I would think he will be able to demand higher rents for anything he puts there than in Brook Park. And with the soccer stadium it wont be on as much of an island on the other side of I-90.  

 

And if Jimmy really does want to play developer then offer to lease him the stadium site for $1 for 50 years if he pays for demolition of the old stadium. 

What you say makes complete sense but at this point Jimmy couldn't care less. It's Disneyland at Brook Park by hook or crook for him now and that's the hill he's literally and figuratively probably going to die on.

Isn't Jimmy Haslem somewhat unfavorable in the owners circle? I feel like relationships and perception amongst constituents matters in situations like this. 

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

Especially when Haslam benefited from the very same law to buy the Crew.    The city should most definitely try to use this as leverage for concessions.   There is also a common wisdom that the Brookpark deal is far from done and things could shift back to the Lakefront or other site within the City of Cleveland before this is over.   Until Haslam transfers money and actually buys the property in Brookpark, I still think it's a toss up. 

 

A lawsuit is a bad idea. A bad lawsuit is a terrible idea.

 

I don't see Haslam making any concessions but rather double downing on a relocation when the law ends up in his favor. Why would he decide to stay voluntarily now?

 

This costs Cleveland time, money, negative attention, and perhaps business leader backlash. Who wants to operate or expand in a city that will sue you for dubious reasons. 

 

It isn't worth it. 

 

16 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

It's honestly quite ironic that Jimmy will be fighting tooth and nail to make the "Modell Law" unconstitutional, when it is literally the reason why he owns the Crew

Is it, though? 
 

What saved the Crew was not only the attraction of new ownership, but also the deal to get a new stadium done (relatively quickly) thanks to an incredible swell of organized fan support. Had those things not

happened, MLS was absolutely going to move the club to Austin and see what, if any, consequences would come from some untested law passed back in the day that ultimately was seemingly performative. MLS, far less powerful than the NFL, truly didn’t seem concerned about it.
 

Perhaps @YABO713 can clarify,

though, as I’m in no way a lawyer—but I truly don’t think Precourt, Garber, and MLS were in any way worried by the fact that this “law” exists. 
 

I think what does help Cleveland in this situation, however (as compared to Cincinnati who will soon be doing this same song and dance) is that the original Browns to Baltimore departure was such black eye on the league at the time, so much so that they quickly had plans to correct it. I really don’t think the league is eager to repeat such a storyline again, but ultimately they’ll do whatever makes them the most money.

 

I am stunned, however, that the Browns ownership would assume this kind of hostile position so soon after what happened with Modell. Then again team owners aren’t normal people. 
 

 

17 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

I think what does help Cleveland in this situation, however (as compared to Cincinnati who will soon be doing this same song and dance) is that the original Browns to Baltimore departure was such black eye on the league at the time, so much so that they quickly had plans to correct it. I really don’t think the league is eager to repeat such a storyline again, but ultimately they’ll do whatever makes them the most money.

 

I am stunned, however, that the Browns ownership would assume this kind of hostile position so soon after what happened with Modell. Then again team owners aren’t normal people. 
 

 

 

The Browns moving to a modern facility 15 minutes from the old stadium within the same county isn't in the same universe as Art Modell relocating the franchise to Baltimore.  

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

I'm extremely biased towards the post office site because I wanted the stadium to move there from the beginning; however, I wonder if that site has become more appealing with the impending investments that will be made for the soccer stadium. I know that parcel is smaller and offers less development and parking revenue opportunities for Jimmy, but I would think he will be able to demand higher rents for anything he puts there than in Brook Park. And with the soccer stadium it wont be on as much of an island on the other side of I-90.  

 

And if Jimmy really does want to play developer then offer to lease him the stadium site for $1 for 50 years if he pays for demolition of the old stadium. 

Plus, Brook Park and its airport proximity would make perfect sense for a relocated post office. I've also been hoping that this idea could somehow be revived.

56 minutes ago, ClevelandBearcat2 said:

 

The Browns moving to a modern facility 15 minutes from the old stadium within the same county isn't in the same universe as Art Modell relocating the franchise to Baltimore.  

 

Well, yeah, of course—I was referring to (and it was my understanding from reading this thread, but maybe I'm getting it wrong) the threat of relocation to another city IF Haslam weren't to get his way. I.E. That's what I thought the context of this discussion on the Modell Law in this situation is (but again, maybe I'm misreading). A.K.A. Haslam wanting his Brook Park kingdom on his terms or he'd dangle it out there that: "Well, yah know, I'd hate to do it but I could move the team, unless you give me what I want...."

10 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said:

Plus, Brook Park and its airport proximity would make perfect sense for a relocated post office. I've also been hoping that this idea could somehow be revived.

Yes the Brook Park land across the road from the airport always was ideally suited for either airport-related development and even a new main post office regional distribution center - even IKEA.  Something doesn't smell right with Jimmy shifting from his Pro-Cleveland plans to stay put with a land bridge and lakefront development (and with prime Burke land added as icing on the cake) to now whiplashing us with the out-of-the-blue divorce announcement and pre-emptive Court filings.  Why would this so-called developer turn away an exclusive offer to build year-yound attractions on both sides of the Rock Hall.  Must be because Jimmy's pupils turned to dollar signs while at the helm of the NFL Private Equity committee (just like when Art Modell headed the NFL's relocation committee and saw the financial package offered to move the Bengals to LA - which Art later claimed for himself on the BWI tarmac).  Buy the land already Jimmy and let's see your next move.  But stop calling it a win-win for the community.

For what it's worth l'm not opposed to some kind of public dollars being used for a stadium facility. I don't like it, but l'm not opposed to it. What l am opposed to is the level of public dollars. There needs to some kind of balance between a city and an owner. Plus, it's important to take into consideration a cities potential ability to support a new stadium. It's obvious a New York, LA or even a city like Atlanta or Houston can afford a much more expensive facility than cities like Buffalo or Cleveland. Wealthier/larger cities may be in a better position to afford a more expensive facility. The sports game is not played on a level playing field. That being the case, l think Cleveland has made Haslam a fair offer. Refurbish the stadium on the lakefront with 475 million in public dollars added to Haslam's contribution. It's what WE can afford. WE can't afford to kick in a billion or more for a dome we aren't asking for, not to mention road infrustructure around it. If Haslam want's a Taj Mahal in Cleveland he'll have to build it himself. We've made a fair offer but egos being egos, l'm expecting things to get ugly now and l'm expecting the final result to not be of our liking. We may lose the team.

Taxpayer money to go to stadium until they move. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/taxpayer-money-going-into-browns-stadium-up-until-team-leaves-cleveland-i-team/

Say what you want about why Cleveland shouldn't fight for the browns, but I would advocate for them to try as much as they can to get them to stay, as it's a massive commerce tool. People fly in, eat/drink, pay for parking, use city transit, buy a 30 rack, all downtown. Even though it's only 8-10 days out of the year, that's a significant amount of money that our downtown businesses aren't seeing if they move to Brook Park. I'm not saying that Brook Park businesses are inferior to Cleveland's, but keeping money in the epicenter is key for local developments across the board. No matter how communist that may seem, the reality is the bigger city gets the worm to feed its children, but in this instance you're going to build a stadium that the city wont be able to keep up with, not even at the fault of Cleveland. You can argue that Cleveland is feeding its cities with the new stadium being more local, but it's more likely to steal your dime, clog your infrastructure, and degrade the response time of your emergency services. Brook Park won't be able to keep up. Whether or not the Art Model law is constitutional, or if it's even worth digging city resources for, it's for keeping Cleveland Cleveland and keeping our localities healthy, rather than pushing sensory overload in our arterial. We aren't the Dallas Cowboys who play in "Arlington", and I can assure you the people who live around that area are miserable. The area is overdeveloped, with how overpopulated the DFW area is every highway is already clogged, on gamedays it's even worse. WE DO NOT WANT THIS... Trust me, I'm not a doctor.

Stadium Drama rolls along. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/browns-stadium-drama-rolls-along/ar-AA1sVel7?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=cfa095646e0140eafa7cea7f47fbeff6&ei=22

Browns to move Cavs to commit https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/nba/cavaliers/browns-consider-move-brook-park-cavaliers-commit-downtown-cleveland/95-3c6ef81f-5350-4618-ad21-40d36c0c4380

14 minutes ago, simplythis said:

Browns to move Cavs to commit

 

I think you meant:

 

"Browns to move.  Cavs to commit."

 

Punctuation matters to meaning!

I think they mispelled "gaslight Cleveland" with "move".

On 10/25/2024 at 4:07 AM, dave2017 said:

SoFi Stadium was completely paid for by Stan Kroenke with all private money. This stadium was $5 billion dollars.  The Haslams have the money if they truly cared what they want to build. Nobody in the public sector were consulted or asked to design a structure the taxpayers couldn't afford this expenditure.  Billionaire's projecting what others cant afford is just wrong. No public financing should be given for a private investment

 

for fun i looked it up and haslam is ‘only’ worth basically half of kroenke’s wealth ($17B vs $8B), so if haslam forked over around a third of his wealth like kroenke supposedly did, that would fund a $2-3B new stadium. 

7 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

for fun i looked it up and haslam is ‘only’ worth basically half of kroenke’s wealth ($17B vs $8B), so if haslam forked over around a third of his wealth like kroenke supposedly did, that would fund a $2-3B new stadium. 

 

When you see how poor he is in comparison to Kroenke, you understand why Tennessee Jimmy is so desperate for that parking revenue. 

14 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

When you see how poor he is in comparison to Kroenke, you understand why Tennessee Jimmy is so desperate for that parking revenue. 

Kroenke got parking plus two NFL tenants.  His still bigger.  Sorry Jimmy.   Sell the team!  😜

 

 

From Jimmy's perspective, why would he? The team is worth almost six times the 2012 purchase price.

 

I don't see him getting a similar return in any other industry, and that amount will explode as more streaming services pick up games along with European interest.

 

The theoretical parking revenue and properties in Jimmyland are peanuts in comparison.

 

Unless he needs billions of dollars in cash ASAP, Jimmy isn't going anywhere.

 

 

 

 

Haslam’s Brook Park, Berea developments progress
By Ken Prendergast / November 21, 2024

 

A small but strategic piece of land that was in the way of the Haslam Sports Group’s (HSG) proposed stadium for its Cleveland Browns football team in suburban Brook Park has sold. Its sale gets it out of the way and into the fold of the overall property transaction for the roofed stadium. And in neighboring Berea, where HSG and its partners plan a Browns-themed mixed-use development, site plans are getting their first airing tonight as part of a rezoning request.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/11/21/haslams-brook-park-berea-developments-progress/

 

Watching this game and thinking how weird it's gonna be to watch televised home games where there are literally no weather elements. Doesn't feel right for the area.

This game is why the idea of a dome (wherever it is) needs to die. 

I dont know how you can watch this game and want a dome.