1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Disclaimer: posting this does not mean I agree with this opinion piece in totality, but I think it makes some good points, and I think will lead to some interesting discussion here. 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/opinion/stadium-deals-gift-riches-owners-such-browns-haslams

 

In particular, I don't see the land bridge and the stadium as the same thing. The public / private benefit from the two things seems very different to me. 

The conspiratorial tone at the beginning is a little off-putting, but it’s hard to argue with his main points. The only reason the land bridge is being considered is because some rich people decided they could make money off of it. Can you imagine the state gifting Cleveland $62 mil for projects that are actually useful?

Who locally is really asking for a $200 million land bridge? I don’t think I even understand who is supposed to be walking across the bridge. Would 1,000 extra apartments on the lakefront justify that kind of infrastructure investment? 
 

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that the Haslams want it, they want the public to pay for it, and they have the cash to grease the proper wheels. 

 

12 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

The conspiratorial tone at the beginning is a little off-putting, but it’s hard to argue with his main points. The only reason the land bridge is being considered is because some rich people decided they could make money off of it. Can you imagine the state gifting Cleveland $62 mil for projects that are actually useful?

Who locally is really asking for a $200 million land bridge? I don’t think I even understand who is supposed to be walking across the bridge. Would 1,000 extra apartments on the lakefront justify that kind of infrastructure investment? 
 

The only thing that makes any sense to me is that the Haslams want it, they want the public to pay for it, and they have the cash to grease the proper wheels. 

 

 

Roldo crossed over to "you kids get off my lawn" territory a long time ago.  He's irrelevant and he did that to himself.  

14 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Under state law (in another erosion of home-rule), a municipality is not allowed to charge more than an 8 percent tax tax on parking receipts. See:

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-715.09

 

However, it may be possible that the proposed North Coast Development Corp. is to be authorized by the city and county to levy its own parking assessments, which may explain why the large area was identified as part of its proposed jurisdiction (see the lakefront thread for my post today, showing that jurisdiction map).

 

The lot operators have a lot of power and government tends to kiss their fundaments.  They are a big part of why Progressive is not downtown (Lewis insisted on integral parking).   I've seen that confirmed on Twitter by people who would know.

@bumsquare The land bridge is probably going to be a big parking garage with a green roof over the tracks. While that doesn't sound very sexy, think of it in these terms -- first the city under its lease with the Browns is required to have X number of parking spaces within Y feet of the stadium. I don't remember what those numbers are and I can't seem to find them in Google searches. But I've heard city officials consider that number of parking of spaces (which are in the thousands) to be sacrosanct. So as long as there's a stadium there, a lot of gameday parking has to be nearby. In the absence of a huge new parking facility, lakefront development isn't going to happen.

 

Look at this gameday picture below (which unfortunately cuts off the view of the parking right up to the water's edge at the bottom). Imagine all of the surface parking you see here being redeveloped with things people can live, visit or work in hundreds of days per year -- except perhaps next to the port warehouse at right.

 

On the 350+ days of the year that there isn't an event at the stadium, that new parking structure masquerading as a land bridge can be used to sustain new apartment buildings, hotels, shops and maybe someday, even a new office/co-working building. That could include some high-rises built next to the tracks and Shoreway boulevard with lower-rise buildings nearer to the lake. That would save developers tens of millions of dollars from having to build their own parking structures for each of their new buildings. That's why the city, the county, NOACA, Greater Cleveland Partnership and others are pushing for the land bridge.

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, KJP said:

@bumsquare The land bridge is probably going to be a big parking garage with a green roof over the tracks. While that doesn't sound very sexy, think of it in these terms -- first the city under its lease with the Browns is required to have X number of parking spaces within Y feet of the stadium. I don't remember what those numbers are and I can't seem to find them in Google searches. But I've heard city officials consider that number of parking of spaces (which are in the thousands) to be sacrosanct. So as long as there's a stadium there, a lot of gameday parking has to be nearby. In the absence of a huge new parking facility, lakefront development isn't going to happen.

 

Look at this gameday picture below (which unfortunately cuts off the view of the parking right up to the water's edge at the bottom). Imagine all of the surface parking you see here being redeveloped with things people can live, visit or work in hundreds of days per year -- except perhaps next to the port warehouse at right.

 

On the 350+ days of the year that there isn't an event at the stadium, that new parking structure masquerading as a land bridge can be used to sustain new apartment buildings, hotels, shops and maybe someday, even a new office/co-working building. That could include some high-rises built next to the tracks and Shoreway boulevard with lower-rise buildings nearer to the lake. That would save developers tens of millions of dollars from having to build their own parking structures for each of their new buildings. That's why the city, the county, NOACA, Greater Cleveland Partnership and others are pushing for the land bridge.

 

 

 

That all tracks (no pun intended). I appreciate your knowledge about the city/NOACA/state thinking concerning this development. I guess I just don’t understand why this much money and why here? The synergies just aren’t apparent to me. If we’re spending this much money to aid development, wouldn’t it be better spent in areas where we can build off of existing momentum? It always seems like people take it as a given that we need to “open up the lakefront”. But why and why here?
 

To (maybe?) bring this back on topic, if this is really a glorified parking garage, it seems like a pretty convenient way for the Haslams to back door $200 million of public stadium subsidy. 

As I said in the lakefront thread, where do you want the stadium parking to be? Hidden in a land bridge and associated structures or at the water's edge where the surface lot will sit empty for 350+ days per year?

 

A lakefront is a valuable resource which people would be willing to live near so they can see it and enjoy it. But it is being wasted as a parking lots which are seldom used. Even when the Browns negotiate a renewed stadium lease, I guarantee you that they are going to want to make sure the city provides X number of parking spaces within Y distance of the stadium. Sure, there are other parking craters that need to be filled in the urban core. None are more embarrassing and unsightly or as valuable as those by the water's edge, IMHO.

I get the arguments against but we always say that we need this city to be forward thinking and this may be our best shot in a long while to finally connect the downtown to the Lakefront.  I think it's worth doing.  

 

20 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

I get the arguments against but we always say that we need this city to be forward thinking and this may be our best shot in a long while to finally connect the downtown to the Lakefront.  I think it's worth doing.  

I've made this argument weeks ago upthread.   We all know public money will be used in some capacity.  We might as well see it benefit the community as a whole and not just people who use the stadium.    It's a good argument for keeping the stadium on the lakefront and investing in mixed uses around it.  

The commenters here are more knowledgeable than me about urban development but I try to read the news coverage about the land bridge and I don’t really get it, either. Just looking at the mock-ups, it seems like a really long way to walk from downtown to the waterfront. And I’m a big walker who has no issues putting miles on sneakers. I think my hang up is that you’re going to walk through big wide open spaces, which feel longer than walking in dense neighborhoods, and I doubt most people want to do that. 
 

I’m not sure I understand the use case. The recent comments about Using it to hide parking that opens up surface lots by the water for development makes more sense to me and I think makes a more compelling pitch. The way it’s being positioned now, the land bridge feels like “The Big Thing,” but it’s really about the lake, right? Everyone wants to be able to have fun by the water, they don’t care about a land bridge. But maybe that’s just me. 

45 minutes ago, coneflower said:

The way it’s being positioned now, the land bridge feels like “The Big Thing,” but it’s really about the lake, right? Everyone wants to be able to have fun by the water, they don’t care about a land bridge. But maybe that’s just me. 

 

The goal is to foster better connectivity between downtown and the lakefront and I think the land bridge concept does that.  Plus some well-planned infill brings everything close together. This picture effectively illustrates how better integration would or could look.

 

@coneflower Yes, depending on the person it can be a long walk from parts of downtown crossing a landbridge and finally arriving at the waterfront. Would it be worth it? Right now as things stand that's a big maybe for many.

 

But the landbridge is not the end. It's the beginning. Right now, even if you make that walk easier by building it you still don't have all that much of a payoff even when you get to the waterfront. 

 

What makes the landbridge worthwhile is the resulting development. If done right we get a brand new neighborhood, on the water, in a park-like setting. A setting filled with residential, entertainment, restaurants and eventually office space. An attractive setting giving people a reason to make the walk from downtown. A setting that puts Cleveland on the map. A look that tells visitors that Cleveland is a viable alternative and not just an afterthought. 

 

Right now Cleveland is never mentioned nationally when it comes to successful cities. Cities that people want to move too, create businesses in. But something as simple as developing a waterfront properly can change perception. You know that old saying, you have to depend money to make money? Well there you go.

 

 

Interesting 

 

^HMM...wonder where that came from...could it have some other meaning than a dome.  If he is suggesting a dome for the current facility I don't think Blaine is keeping up on the cost estimates not to mention the engineering issues mentioned in this thread that specifically question whether the land at that spot can bear the weight.  I know many on council will be skeptical if the costs are what have been suggested.  A retractable dome only makes sense built new and in another spot downtown.

LOL, Blaine Griffin who refuses to provide the funding needed to simply MAINTAIN a functional westside market wants to upgrade to a dome? Cleveland elected idiocy at its finest

If the Browns are going to stay where they are and not add a roof (which sounds like it would be borderline impossible anyway), I hope they would consider some radical changes in their renovation to make the stadium more useful on non-game days.

 

This article proposing a more community-integrated baseball stadium has stuck with me for a couple of years.  Why couldn’t the Browns do something similar and open up the sides of the stadium and make the space available to the community in the warm-weather months?  They’re already set up for food service and retail.  Why not offer those things to this planned lakefront neighborhood year round?

An interesting perspective from Mark Rosentraub who was a professor and dean at Cleveland State University's Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs and helping to rewrite the leases for the Cavaliers and Indians when he sat on the Gateway Economic Redevelopment Corp and is currently a professor of sports management and director of the Center for Sports Venues & Real Estate Development at the University of Michigan.

 

Stadium development expert: Cleveland Browns Stadium should be replaced, not renovated

JOE SCALZO 

May 15, 2023 05:45 AM

 

First question and Mark's response

Quote

You're in favor of replacing the stadium and moving it to a different location, but it appears that renovating is emerging as the option right now. The Haslams (Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam) have said they want the stadium project to be part of a bigger redevelopment on the lakefront. You don't have as much land to work with in that case, obviously, but you've seen stadiums serve as an anchor for something bigger. Could that happen here?

 

First of all, renovation is never cheap. Second, it never addresses the urban planning issues that plagued the first decision. So it's basically saying, "Well, we didn't make the right decision the first time, so let's figure out how we make a bad decision into a good decision." And I'm saying, "Wait a second, you've got an opportunity to make a good decision."

 

Let's assume the renovation would cost $300 million. I'm throwing out a number. It might be more. A (new) stadium would be $1 billion more. You say, "Oh my God! A billion more!" But if I divide a billion by 30 years, and I monetize other aspects of the project, then suddenly it's not more expensive than replicating the initial error. I always try to advise people: Don't throw good money after bad. It was not the right decision. Let's all agree that it wasn't. Michael White and his team did the best they could under the existing circumstances and probably 90% of us, if we were in the room with Michael at the time, we'd say take the deal. … But today I would say take the time and don't get the number of zeroes in the middle of doing good public policy. Let's figure it out.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-business/mark-rosentraub-cleveland-browns-stadium-should-be-replaced

This is exactly the type of conversation the Cleveland Browns want to be hearing from someone other than themselves.

Does the stadium even get much use during the warm months as it is? Looking at allevents.in and vividseats.com, I'm seeing a Cleveland Legends event on May 25th, a Monster Truck event on June 3rd -- then nothing until September 10th when the Bengals visit.

 

That can't be right - there must be some private ones not advertised. Otherwise, why even bother discussing the benefits of a dome or new stadium when we can't get that many events during the summer? If there are virtually none in good weather, why be bullish there will be more when the weather is miserable.

 

That said, I might not be looking at the right websites or there are private functions not advertised. 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

An interesting perspective from Mark Rosentraub who was a professor and dean at Cleveland State University's Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs and helping to rewrite the leases for the Cavaliers and Indians when he sat on the Gateway Economic Redevelopment Corp and is currently a professor of sports management and director of the Center for Sports Venues & Real Estate Development at the University of Michigan.

 

Stadium development expert: Cleveland Browns Stadium should be replaced, not renovated

JOE SCALZO 

May 15, 2023 05:45 AM

 

First question and Mark's response

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-business/mark-rosentraub-cleveland-browns-stadium-should-be-replaced

 

He seems pretty cavalier about the ease of raising property taxes or getting other counties to pitch in. 

1 hour ago, TBideon said:

Does the stadium even get much use during the warm months as it is? Looking at allevents.in and vividseats.com, I'm seeing a Cleveland Legends event on May 25th, a Monster Truck event on June 3rd -- then nothing until September 10th when the Bengals visit.

 

That can't be right - there must be some private ones not advertised. Otherwise, why even bother discussing the benefits of a dome or new stadium when we can't get that many events during the summer? If there are virtually none in good weather, why be bullish there will be more when the weather is miserable.

 

That said, I might not be looking at the right websites or there are private functions not advertised. 

 

You're assuming someone is trying to promote the stadium as a place for non-football events.

But isn't that the point of a dome, that the city would be promoting non-football events, save for hosting a fantasy Superbowl?

 

There must be corporate and private parties not advertised, or I'm on the wrong sites. 

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

Does the stadium even get much use during the warm months as it is? Looking at allevents.in and vividseats.com, I'm seeing a Cleveland Legends event on May 25th, a Monster Truck event on June 3rd -- then nothing until September 10th when the Bengals visit.

 

That can't be right - there must be some private ones not advertised. Otherwise, why even bother discussing the benefits of a dome or new stadium when we can't get that many events during the summer? If there are virtually none in good weather, why be bullish there will be more when the weather is miserable.

 

That said, I might not be looking at the right websites or there are private functions not advertised. 

You can check the calendars of domed stadiums as well.   They are just as bleak.  Not much market for a space that size.   The occasional "novelty" event shows up on a calendar for those attached to convention centers, like a barmitzvah or wedding. 

44 minutes ago, TBideon said:

But isn't that the point of a dome, that the city would be promoting non-football events, save for hosting a fantasy Superbowl?

 

There must be corporate and private parties not advertised, or I'm on the wrong sites. 

CBS actually hosts quite a few of these already, mainly in the clubs either facing the lake or downtown.   

 

As mentioned in the post above, there really isn't a huge market for a rental space for 80,000 people, unless you're in Vegas or NOLA, and even then it might be once or twice a year, if at all.  

The World Series of Rock drew some large crowds to the old stadium back in the 70s.  But those days are gone.  The only possibility for a huge draw now would be for a really big act like the Rolling Stones, Elton John, et al.

So domed stadiums aren't draws in general, and the current stadium's indoor facilites are sufficient for private parties?

 

Then let's not waste money on a dome. We don't need another medical mart albatross.

5 hours ago, Luke_S said:

An interesting perspective from Mark Rosentraub who was a professor and dean at Cleveland State University's Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs and helping to rewrite the leases for the Cavaliers and Indians when he sat on the Gateway Economic Redevelopment Corp and is currently a professor of sports management and director of the Center for Sports Venues & Real Estate Development at the University of Michigan.

 

Stadium development expert: Cleveland Browns Stadium should be replaced, not renovated

JOE SCALZO 

May 15, 2023 05:45 AM

 

First question and Mark's response

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-business/mark-rosentraub-cleveland-browns-stadium-should-be-replaced

I hope all those that immediately stop thinking with  the subject of a new stadium and go to their automatic default position - “I wouldn’t contribute a dollar of public money to a billionaire like Haslam” at least take time to read the article.  
 

Cleveland has the opportunity and time  to make a “game changing” decision - if it opens the lakefront for development and public use instead of keeping the factory of sadness where it is.  
 

 

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by CleveFan

Can you give the bullet points of his article? 

 

And I'm not inherently opposed to a new stadium, provided the NFL changes the charter so the city/county receives direct equity in the team going forward.

1 hour ago, CleveFan said:

I hope all those that immediately stop thinking with  the subject of a new stadium and go to their automatic default position - “I wouldn’t contribute a dollar of public money to a billionaire like Haslam” at least take time to read the article.  
 

Cleveland has the opportunity and time  to make a “game changing” decision - if it opens the lakefront for development and public use instead of keeping the factory of sadness where it is.  
 

 

 

I'm not someone who holds this position, but it's a difficult issue to navigate in a county with such high property tax rates compared to neighbors and even the rest of the state. Our aging population leaves a lot of people here on fixed income who don't have a lot of wiggle room in their budgets. Most of our regional school levies failed in the last election, for example. The Browns are going to need a compelling vision and a broad coalition to get that public money. The expert interviewed by Crain's offered some compelling ideas (at least to me) that packaged the idea of a new stadium with added benefits to the community beyond football stuff, like new housing and access to the waterfront that everyone can enjoy. I'm no politico, but I bet running a campaign for a tax that results in a new dome stadium for the Browns and guarenteed lakefront redevelopment would be popular enough to get over 50% of the vote. Trying to rope neighboring counties in seems too hard to me, so I doubt that goes anywhere.



 

One of my pet peeves is how CLE can continually miss out on big stadium concerts summer after summer.  For example, Taylor Swift is going to Pittsburgh, Detroit and even Cincinnati.  Not sure why CLE left off this list.  Seems to happen every year that PIT and DET get the shows instead of CLE.  I understand that DET is a bigger market.  However CIN and PIT are smaller (market size speaking).  

 

Tired of the stupid “routing” excuse too.  That never seemed to be a problem in the 70’s and 80’s.  Anyone here with legit insight on this problem?    

 

An argument for keeping the IX center is that there are larger conventions that can't be held at the convention center--the boat show, auto show, ect--I know we wont be able to build a stadium that is integrated into the convention center, but if we had a domed stadium would we be able to hold the events there so we can keep all conventions downtown and close the IX center to give Hopkins flexibility for whatever expansions it wants? Or would the footprint of usable event space still be too small in a football stadium. 

 

Also, I still think we should try to combine a new football stadium with a new soccer stadium; making it so the upper bowl is easily closed for smaller events. 

15 minutes ago, BigMacky said:

One of my pet peeves is how CLE can continually miss out on big stadium concerts summer after summer.  For example, Taylor Swift is going to Pittsburgh, Detroit and even Cincinnati.  Not sure why CLE left off this list.  Seems to happen every year that PIT and DET get the shows instead of CLE.  I understand that DET is a bigger market.  However CIN and PIT are smaller (market size speaking).  

 

Tired of the stupid “routing” excuse too.  That never seemed to be a problem in the 70’s and 80’s.  Anyone here with legit insight on this problem?    

 

This is a more recent thing.  See this article for example  https://www.axios.com/local/cleveland/2023/01/10/major-concerts-skipping-cleveland

1 hour ago, BigMacky said:

One of my pet peeves is how CLE can continually miss out on big stadium concerts summer after summer.  For example, Taylor Swift is going to Pittsburgh, Detroit and even Cincinnati.  Not sure why CLE left off this list.  Seems to happen every year that PIT and DET get the shows instead of CLE.  I understand that DET is a bigger market.  However CIN and PIT are smaller (market size speaking).  

 

Tired of the stupid “routing” excuse too.  That never seemed to be a problem in the 70’s and 80’s.  Anyone here with legit insight on this problem?    

 

There really is a lot that goes into planning tours. Geography is a big factor(for example a lot of big stadium acts skip Indy because it’s so close to Chicago which is a almost automatic stop), venue scheduling is another, also there is technology that Ticketmaster and others use to project which cities can produce the highest revenue for a particular artist. So it’s a huge combination of factors. I know Cincys Taylor Swift tickets are among the highest priced on the entire tour so they definitely know what they are doing lol, the cheapest I could find a few minutes ago was 1000.00+ bucks and she’s there 2 nights! I’ve never seen anything like it. I was surprised Beyonce skipped Ohio completely tho. I heard they tried to book the bengals stadium in Cincy but it didn’t work scheduling wise due to a music fest around the same time so they opted for Louisville instead.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by 646empire

Not surprised by the cincy stats she’s a country pop star from Tennessee. Cincy is a perfect central spot for her audience

4 hours ago, Luke_S said:

An argument for keeping the IX center is that there are larger conventions that can't be held at the convention center--the boat show, auto show, ect--I know we wont be able to build a stadium that is integrated into the convention center, but if we had a domed stadium would we be able to hold the events there so we can keep all conventions downtown and close the IX center to give Hopkins flexibility for whatever expansions it wants? Or would the footprint of usable event space still be too small in a football stadium. 

 

Also, I still think we should try to combine a new football stadium with a new soccer stadium; making it so the upper bowl is easily closed for smaller events. 

A football stadium does not make for a great convention space.  The floor space is limited, and the ceiling is too high. 

2 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Not surprised by the cincy stats she’s a country pop star from Tennessee. 

Well, grew up near Reading, PA, before moving at age 14 to Tennessee to launch her singing career. She's an Philly Eagles fan btw. 

4 hours ago, BigMacky said:

One of my pet peeves is how CLE can continually miss out on big stadium concerts summer after summer.  For example, Taylor Swift is going to Pittsburgh, Detroit and even Cincinnati.  Not sure why CLE left off this list.  Seems to happen every year that PIT and DET get the shows instead of CLE.  I understand that DET is a bigger market.  However CIN and PIT are smaller (market size speaking).  

 

Tired of the stupid “routing” excuse too.  That never seemed to be a problem in the 70’s and 80’s.  Anyone here with legit insight on this problem?    

 

It's complex.    In all touring, but especially on the stadium level, much of it comes down to the deal that the promoter and artist can get from the venue.   I'm sure not of us would be shocked to learn, but my guess is the City of Cleveland is not a great negotiating partner.     

 

Also as much as you don't want to hear "routing," Cleveland lies right in the middle of the Detroit/Pittsburgh/Cincinnati triangle.   So the promoter probably sees an opportunity to maximize revenue and draw from this market by playing around it.   Especially with multiple nights in the surrounding cities.  It costs money to move production.  But fans driving to you is pure profit.  

 

It's not necessarily always this way.   Last summer Motley Crue/Def Leppard played Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Cincinnati.   The difference is they only did one night in each city, and played smaller baseball parks in the surrounding markets.  

If Taylor Swift announces an extension of this tour into secondary and tertiary markets, I bet you might see Cleveland on the routing.    

Well, at least we're getting Barry Manilow.

14 hours ago, BigMacky said:

One of my pet peeves is how CLE can continually miss out on big stadium concerts summer after summer.  For example, Taylor Swift is going to Pittsburgh, Detroit and even Cincinnati.  Not sure why CLE left off this list.  Seems to happen every year that PIT and DET get the shows instead of CLE.  I understand that DET is a bigger market.  However CIN and PIT are smaller (market size speaking).  

 

Tired of the stupid “routing” excuse too.  That never seemed to be a problem in the 70’s and 80’s.  Anyone here with legit insight on this problem?    

 

I have heard of cases where the promoters determine where the shows will be and they can also determine whether an act can even get a venue in a certain city. I've heard first hand from an entertainer here in Columbus that the can't land a venue her because a specific promoter must be used. Back when Belkin was promoting shows, it seemed like everyone came to CLE.

^ Exactly. I don't think the problem is geography or routing. It's no longer having a promoter with the reputation of the Belkin's. 

Belkin and WMMS were a great one-two punch back then.

56 minutes ago, cadmen said:

^ Exactly. I don't think the problem is geography or routing. It's no longer having a promoter with the reputation of the Belkin's. 

Yes promoters are a big deal on the smaller scale acts. But it isnt really a thing on giant stadium tours tho which is what I thought we where talking about.

Edited May 16, 20232 yr by 646empire

3 hours ago, cadmen said:

^ Exactly. I don't think the problem is geography or routing. It's no longer having a promoter with the reputation of the Belkin's. 

 Michael Belkin is still the president of the local Live Nation office.    Yes not the same, but he's still here and very active in the market. 

 

Taylor Swift is promoted by Louis Messina/AEG, so he has nothing to do with her.  

3 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Belkin and WMMS were a great one-two punch back then.

 

Exactly.    If you wanted WMMS to boost your breaking acts, your superstars had to play Cleveland.

 

A saw building permit applications for tents to be put up at the entrances to CBS from May 23 to June 10 for Monster Jam....

 

https://www.ticketmaster.com/monster-jam-tickets/artist/1542376?venueId=40971&brand=monsterjam&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw04yjBhApEiwAJcvNoX76le3DB6LDdK6Pr2hSzAaQfRMJfQrMBCXDf1-2V2iyEeOodVUMahoCE6cQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

So it is getting used...

And they were upset about that guy turfing the field…. 😜

Nick Castele and Cleveland Signal with a detailed breakdown of the costs-to-date of the current stadium, including the share of the cost taken by the city and the team.

 

The public cost of Cleveland Browns stadium: hundreds of millions and counting Since 1998, the city has been on the hook for roughly $350 million to build and repair the NFL stadium on the Lake Erie shore, a Signal Cleveland analysis found.

39 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Nick Castele and Cleveland Signal with a detailed breakdown of the costs-to-date of the current stadium, including the share of the cost taken by the city and the team.

 

The public cost of Cleveland Browns stadium: hundreds of millions and counting Since 1998, the city has been on the hook for roughly $350 million to build and repair the NFL stadium on the Lake Erie shore, a Signal Cleveland analysis found.

 

One one hand Blaine G. and company say it's insane to invest substantial dollars at WSM and the building needs to turn a profit and on this hand the city and county subsidize the crap out of a private franchise and Blaine is out here saying we need to spend a ton more money on retrofitting the stadium. Politicians man.

Well, the Browns do pay such a generous $250,000 to rent the stadium every year. Wow, what a deal. 

I thought this was interesting and could be a model for how Cleveland can handle its stadium redevelopment costs.

https://frontofficesports.com/vikings-minnesota-pay-off-stadium-debt-23-years-early/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=article-sharing

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

On 5/17/2023 at 11:19 AM, TBideon said:

Well, the Browns do pay such a generous $250,000 to rent the stadium every year. Wow, what a deal. 

So considering with pre-season, that is $25k per game it seems pretty low. What other benefits does the county get? Do they get parking revenue or concessions or any ticket revenue split?