28 minutes ago, coneflower said:

The Browns leaving the region altogether would destroy the careers and “legacies” of every politician who had anything to do with it. I don’t think anyone is dumb enough to accept that as an option, especially Bibb who surely has higher aspirations. 
 

My gripe is we’re here in these forums debating non-stop, making all kinds of assumptions, but the people who were elected to actually do the negotiations have hardly said anything. Thankfully we have local reporters who are piecing it together, but I just think Bibb and Ronanye (who never says anything and it seems has most at stake if they leave Cleveland and want county money) have an obligation to provide more insight into what they are thinking. 
 

 

 

There isn't anywhere near the love for this 138-264-1 team as it had prior to the relocation. The city's population/supporters have fallen 20% since the move, the suburb populations stagnant with some visible decline since the move, Harvey f'ing Weinstein is the starting quarterback in the most insulting contract of all time, and, save for the drunk muni idiots, there isn't much conversation supporting this grift. Even the zealots on reddit/browns aren't in solidarity of paying off the criminals.

 

Bribing the billionaires so the millionares can throw a ball are the last things on many people's minds these days.

 

Edited June 7, 20241 yr by TBideon

It's just a business. If you don't like their product, don't buy anything from them.

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

My gripe is we’re here in these forums debating non-stop, making all kinds of assumptions, but the people who were elected to actually do the negotiations have hardly said anything. Thankfully we have local reporters who are piecing it together, but I just think Bibb and Ronanye (who never says anything and it seems has most at stake if they leave Cleveland and want county money) have an obligation to provide more insight into what they are thinking. 

 

I think they should talk more when they actually have something to talk about.  Keep in mind that they're negotiating with a group who, at best, have different goals, and at worst are arguing in bad faith to extort the city.  Sometimes, you have to play things close to the vest when negotiating.  If that gets the best deal for the city, then I support it.

 

But right now, what is there for them to say?

 

We know what the Haslams want; we know what the city and county have offered.  If the Haslams would make up their mind about what they're going to do, the city could move forward either way.  Instead, it's the Haslams who are dragging their feet because inflicting delays gives them more leverage and they know it.  This is a bunch of greedy billionaires putting their needs above the city, the region, and the team and what drives me nuts is that they are derailing the best momentum we've had on this front in my lifetime.  Meanwhile, both the Guardians and the Cavs contribute much more to the city (see the Cavs riverfront facility) and cost us a LOT less.

 

So let's give Bibb the latitude he needs to actually negotiate, because it's bad for everyone if the city gets hosed for the benefit of the Haslams.

Except we're all paying for other people's decision to buy the product. I love the Browns too but my appetite for paying for their stadium is probably less than most. 

10 minutes ago, Chris314 said:

Instead, it's the Haslams who are dragging their feet because inflicting delays gives them more leverage and they know it. 

Especially with Bibb starting the reelection process. If they keep delaying, telling the Browns beat writers that the City won't give them money, and hinting they will back Griffin, they know that puts even more pressure on Bibb and his staff. 

14 minutes ago, Chris314 said:

So let's give Bibb the latitude he needs to actually negotiate, because it's bad for everyone if the city gets hosed for the benefit of the Haslams.

That is a lot of faith to be putting in politicians. Because Haslam is such an unlikable rich dude, folks assume that the government is fighting “the good fight.” But they can make bad decisions or have flawed thinking too. 

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

That is a lot of faith to be putting in politicians. Because Haslam is such an unlikable rich dude, folks assume that the government is fighting “the good fight.” But they can make bad decisions or have flawed thinking too. 

 

Politicians can (and should) be held accountable.  The Haslams weren't elected, yet they have a huge influence over the lives of people in this region and show no sense of public responsibility.  Love him or hate him, Bibb works for us and so we should want him to do a good job.  That doesn't mean he will, but it's in the public interest to encourage him to get the best deal for the city. If that means being a little coy during negotiations, I'm fine with that.  Whatever they come up with should also, at a minimum, be shared with the public before the contract gets signed (or ideally put to a vote).

I think a town hall of sorts would be beneficial and appropriate, as Bibb's lack of communication isn't helpful. Is he focusing on more serious issues, of course. Do the Browns truly benefit the city or morale, who knows.

 

But, for whatever reason, the Browns stadium and team itself is part of the Greater Cleveland zeitgeist, and I can't imagine prepared statements, even an open forum, would affect current or upcoming negotiations. Leadership silence leads to useless speculation and a lot of wasted time, and a good mayor needs to seen as proactive, focused, and providing proper messaging instead.

 

Bibb is the city/region ambassador and leader and has an obligation to keep people informed. My hunch, probably like most of yours, is there have been very limited conversations/negotiations, as both sides are waiting for the other to blink, or for KJP to break a story, and they're just in holding patterns. 

Crain’s has a pretty good article on the stadium. You can read it via the Cuyahoga County library https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/why-browns-are-insisting-new-dome-or-major-renovation

 

The overall gist of it is that Browns stadium is in good shape (although it requires ongoing maintenance money) and the only reason it requires any $1B+ renovations now is for fan experience/amenities. Ken Silliman, the former Gateway board chair, says the stadium was not “hastily built” or “shoddy.” He argues the best path forward is the status quo, which the team rejects. The Browns want the public to pay for upgrades to fan experience. 
 

I don’t think the article was intended to be a take down of the Browns’ position but the facts being what they are serves that role. 

Fantastic article, the $400,000,000  approximation for the next 30 years is very valuable, as that provides a rough estimate for what a bare bones renovation might cost. Now that we know the numbers I'm firmly in the minimal renovation camp. 

 

Assuming a 50-50 public/private split (not saying I support that, but it's the Haslams position) that saves the taxpayers $400,000,000 versus the bells and whistles renovation, and $1,000,000,000 versus a whole new stadium. That's a lot of money! Take your pick of more impactful projects we could do with that money, Landbridge, CHEERS, branch red line through Lakewood, etc. 

35 minutes ago, coneflower said:

Crain’s has a pretty good article on the stadium. You can read it via the Cuyahoga County library https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/why-browns-are-insisting-new-dome-or-major-renovation

 

The overall gist of it is that Browns stadium is in good shape (although it requires ongoing maintenance money) and the only reason it requires any $1B+ renovations now is for fan experience/amenities. Ken Silliman, the former Gateway board chair, says the stadium was not “hastily built” or “shoddy.” He argues the best path forward is the status quo, which the team rejects. The Browns want the public to pay for upgrades to fan experience. 
 

I don’t think the article was intended to be a take down of the Browns’ position but the facts being what they are serves that role. 

Sorry for going off topic but can you again access Crains via the CC Library?  About 3-4 months ago I was having trouble signing on with my library card so I called the library and was told that Crains was no longer available for free through the library.  I thought that was strange since the link was still on the website but I took the guy at his word since I could not access it.

The problem, as the article indicates, is that the bare bones renovation is a non-starter for the Browns:

 

"Just one problem: According to the city, that’s a non-starter with the Browns.

 

The stadium’s 30-year lease expires at the end of the 2028 season and the Browns have “expressed that a renewal is contingent on upgrades they feel are necessary to bring a fan experience that is on par with other teams in the NFL,” Sarah Johnson, the city’s chief communications officer, said in an email. “If the city of Cleveland does not make any upgrades, we can expect the tenant will not renew their lease and the stadium will need to either find a new long-term tenant or will remain empty following the duration of the current lease in 2028”".

 

From a pure dollars perspective, this would obviously be the lowest cost option. But if it's a proposal that the Browns won't take, unfortunately it doesn't hold much weight.

^ The question is what exactly the Browns mean by non-starter? Or put another way, or what? The article states they will break their lease, okay, but they've previously stated they won't leave North East Ohio. One of those would have to be proven false. If the city calls the Browns' bluff will they leave for another media market? Maybe, I don't know, but if forced to bet, I think the Haslams might actually blink first. The public attitude for sweetheart stadium deals is turning against the owners fairly quickly, and the Model law, while perhaps legally dubious, will still greatly increase the price tag for leaving. 

 

Obviously that kind of brinksmanship isn't ideal, and I don't want to see the Browns leave, but the City shouldn't be afraid to play hardball. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

^ The question is what exactly the Browns mean by non-starter? Or put another way, or what? The article states they will break their lease, okay, but they've previously stated they won't leave North East Ohio. One of those would have to be proven false. If the city calls the Browns' bluff will they leave for another media market? Maybe, I don't know, but if forced to bet, I think the Haslams might actually blink first. The public attitude for sweetheart stadium deals is turning against the owners fairly quickly, and the Model law, while perhaps legally dubious, will still greatly increase the price tag for leaving. 

 

Obviously that kind of brinksmanship isn't ideal, and I don't want to see the Browns leave, but the City shouldn't be afraid to play hardball. 

I think the article is implying that it would be a non-starter for the team to stay in the current stadium with this type of proposal. Meaning, if the city's renovation proposal to the Browns was a bare-bones, purely structural renovation proposal with none of the (still unknown) "enhancements", that the Haslam's would move full steam ahead with the Brook Park proposal. I'm not suggesting that that's the right thing to do, or even the feasible thing to do. I'm just saying that I agree with the article's implication that the discussions wouldn't go very far with this type of hypothetical "3rd" avenue.

Right. The Browns want their Brook Park dome and if they can’t get it, they’ll accept $1B in renovations to the current stadium as a consolation prize 😃

 

The only question is whose money are they going to spend? 
 

I like the suggestion of Congress stepping in on these stadium funding issues at a national level but seems rather unlikely especially anytime soon. 

Edited June 10, 20241 yr by coneflower

I'm as biggest a sports fan as anyone. That being said, l'm really down on the sports palace race by competing egos...l mean owners. Not to mention the spoiled deep pocketed fans leaving the majority of us in the position of having to pay through the nose for what l contend is a huge waste of community resources.

 

Problem is, that's pretty much the only game in town. If you want to call yourself major league you have to pay to play. I hate what its become. The only way out l think is having enough of a critical mass of cities collectively say "No!"

 

We're not there yet but l can only hope it's somewhere in the not too distant future. Meanwhile its hold your nose and "Play ball!"

 

I was in a daydreaming Monday type of mood and looking back through old pictures, so decided to throw some thoughts and inspiration of how I'd love to ideally see Downtown's lakefront developed. Or at least some elements and ideology that it could be modeled from - Copenhagen's Nordhavn district.

Main takeaways are creative ways to reclaim and repurpose underutilized waterfront land in a sustainable/green way, creating a connected and dense new neighborhood accessible to transit and that prioritizes people over cars, and focusing on quality public spaces with a selection of supportive shops, retail, and recreation dispersed throughout.

 

1 hour ago, brownsfan1226 said:

I think the article is implying that it would be a non-starter for the team to stay in the current stadium with this type of proposal. Meaning, if the city's renovation proposal to the Browns was a bare-bones, purely structural renovation proposal with none of the (still unknown) "enhancements", that the Haslam's would move full steam ahead with the Brook Park proposal. I'm not suggesting that that's the right thing to do, or even the feasible thing to do. I'm just saying that I agree with the article's implication that the discussions wouldn't go very far with this type of hypothetical "3rd" avenue.

Agreed, but they want even more public money for the brook park stadium. If they can't get $600,000,000 of taxpayer money for the bells and whistles renovation, I doubt they'll be able to get $1,200,000,000 of taxpayer money for a new build in a small suburbs. That means they will have to either put up much more of their own money, or they will have to move to a different market that will be more liberal with taxpayer funds. Maybe the State will step in and save the day, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pool of public money is actually larger for a renovation in Cleveland than it would be for a new build in Brook Park. 

 

My question is more, If at the end of the day the total taxpayer funds available to them are only $300,000,000, half of their lowest request, what will the Browns do? Will they pack up and leave, or will they settle for a more bare bones renovation? My instinct is that they'll grumble, but ultimately take the money, stay put, and settle for basic renovations. That said, it's a game of chicken, and I can't be sure how it'd work out. 

39 minutes ago, urbanetics_ said:

I was in a daydreaming Monday type of mood and looking back through old pictures, so decided to throw some thoughts and inspiration of how I'd love to ideally see Downtown's lakefront developed. Or at least some elements and ideology that it could be modeled from - Copenhagen's Nordhavn district.

Main takeaways are creative ways to reclaim and repurpose underutilized waterfront land in a sustainable/green way, creating a connected and dense new neighborhood accessible to transit and that prioritizes people over cars, and focusing on quality public spaces with a selection of supportive shops, retail, and recreation dispersed throughout.

 

I just walked around this neighborhood last month, along with the Bella Centre neighborhood and newer build area near the Opera house in Copenhagen. Then other new builds in Houthaven, Zuid, and Ijburg neighborhoods of Amsterdam as well. Most of my time traveling is spent trying to find things to bring back to Cleveland haha. 

 

But I think your sharing of projects and ideas like this is very important for people in our city to see, especially projects from Northern European and Scandinavian cities. These are places that have comparable climates, often have similar metro area populations, and are ideas and infrastructure that can be implemented here for year round enjoyment. I think not being able to see the possibilities and imagine them in your own city is a big reason why most of our cities get stuck. The new build areas of these cities are things that should be easily achievable for our cities.

2 hours ago, cadmen said:

Problem is, that's pretty much the only game in town. If you want to call yourself major league you have to pay to play.

 

Maybe, maybe not -- the Guardians aren't selling out their private boxes.  Maybe we've reached the peak on the baseball side.  That suggests caution in over-amenity-ing the Browns stadium.

13 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Maybe, maybe not -- the Guardians aren't selling out their private boxes.  Maybe we've reached the peak on the baseball side.  That suggests caution in over-amenity-ing the Browns stadium.

Football is a different animal then baseball...  You can not compare the too unfortunately. 

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

Agreed, but they want even more public money for the brook park stadium. If they can't get $600,000,000 of taxpayer money for the bells and whistles renovation, I doubt they'll be able to get $1,200,000,000 of taxpayer money for a new build in a small suburbs. That means they will have to either put up much more of their own money, or they will have to move to a different market that will be more liberal with taxpayer funds. Maybe the State will step in and save the day, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pool of public money is actually larger for a renovation in Cleveland than it would be for a new build in Brook Park. 

 

My question is more, If at the end of the day the total taxpayer funds available to them are only $300,000,000, half of their lowest request, what will the Browns do? Will they pack up and leave, or will they settle for a more bare bones renovation? My instinct is that they'll grumble, but ultimately take the money, stay put, and settle for basic renovations. That said, it's a game of chicken, and I can't be sure how it'd work out. 

Definitely a game of chicken! My gut is actually leaning the other direction. I think that they're just seeing what they can squeeze out of every possible public source for either option ahead of ponying up their own cash. But since they do have deeper pockets as the result of selling Pilot/FlyingJ, I think that they'll end up going with whichever is the best possible combination of public financing and amenities, and then will fund the rest. I personally think the only way they stay in the current stadium is if the public financing is leaps and bounds better than whatever the Brook Park package becomes. I still hope a new build in Cleveland Proper becomes an option. We shall see though.

On 6/10/2024 at 4:54 PM, G00pie said:

Football is a different animal then baseball...  You can not compare the too unfortunately. 

And 3 months into the season, the Guardians have averaged 22,549 a game over 29 home games... giving a total attendance of 653,936.

 

Browns Stadum holds 67,431. If they sell out all 10 home games (that includes preseason) they will barely eclipse the Guardians during the cold months/school months when "nobody goes" to see baseball. 

 

It's comparing apples to oranges, or rather baseballs to footballs. 

 

 

On 6/10/2024 at 6:16 PM, brownsfan1226 said:

I think that they're just seeing what they can squeeze out of every possible public source for either option ahead of ponying up their own cash.

 

Possibly for another forum, but the county is $16M in the hole, good luck in Brook Park w/county funding, Haslams.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/06/sales-tax-revenues-down-sheriff-expenses-up-cuyahoga-bracing-for-16-million-deficit.html

18 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

Possibly for another forum, but the county is $16M in the hole, good luck in Brook Park w/county funding, Haslams.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/06/sales-tax-revenues-down-sheriff-expenses-up-cuyahoga-bracing-for-16-million-deficit.html

 

But what's the county funding source(s)? Sin taxes? Property taxes? Other? If all of these are captured via a TIF and directed to pay off a stadium bond issue over 30 years, it could be a rather significant bond issue. Brook Park will probably also institute an admissions tax and can capture it to pay for police/fire/EMS overtime at stadium events. With the ability to create a legal framework for a TIF plus county and state contributions and TIFs, it doesn't matter if this stadium is in Cleveland or tiny Linndale.

16 hours ago, originaljbw said:

And 3 months into the season, the Guardians have averaged 22,549 a game over 29 home games... giving a total attendance of 653,936.

 

Browns Stadum holds 67,431. If they sell out all 10 home games (that includes preseason) they will barely eclipse the Guardians during the cold months/school months when "nobody goes" to see baseball. 

 

It's comparing apples to oranges, or rather baseballs to footballs. 

 

 

So alot of the attendance to indians games are from locals..  a football game brings in 1,000's of out of towners that spend the weekend here, fill up hotels, eat at restaurants, drink at our bars and visit the tourist stuff.  Alot of Indians fans, drive in and drive out..  I know cause i am one of them.  I dont pregame or postgame.  just in and out for the game.  I dont even pay for parking most of the time.  I think we gotta look at all the ancillary football does for the city too..  Stats like this are disingenuous. 

29 minutes ago, G00pie said:

I know cause i am one of them. 

Can’t argue with that, that’s just science

1 hour ago, G00pie said:

So alot of the attendance to indians games are from locals..  a football game brings in 1,000's of out of towners that spend the weekend here, fill up hotels, eat at restaurants, drink at our bars and visit the tourist stuff.  Alot of Indians fans, drive in and drive out..  I know cause i am one of them.  I dont pregame or postgame.  just in and out for the game.  I dont even pay for parking most of the time.  I think we gotta look at all the ancillary football does for the city too..  Stats like this are disingenuous. 

 

Lots of Guardians fans pre and post game.  Lots of baseball fans come in from out of town as well, eating at restaurants and filling hotels.  I know because I worked at Downtown bars for over a decade.

3 hours ago, G00pie said:

So alot of the attendance to indians games are from locals..  a football game brings in 1,000's of out of towners that spend the weekend here, fill up hotels, eat at restaurants, drink at our bars and visit the tourist stuff.  Alot of Indians fans, drive in and drive out..  I know cause i am one of them.  I dont pregame or postgame.  just in and out for the game.  I dont even pay for parking most of the time.  I think we gotta look at all the ancillary football does for the city too..  Stats like this are disingenuous. 

But your point of view is just anecdotal. You have no data about the number of people who come from out of town for either sport. You’re just extrapolating based on your own experience. I wouldn’t call it disingenuous, but it holds less weight than the actual attendance numbers. 

3 hours ago, KJP said:

Brook Park will probably also institute an admissions tax and can capture it to pay for police/fire/EMS overtime at stadium events.

This is typically paid for by the Browns, or other tenant of the stadium on an event day. 

 

Agreed though-the admissions tax could go to help cover other gaps. 

Councilman Brian Kazy to host a panel regarding using public dollars to finance sports facilities.https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/councilman-brian-kazy-plans-june-20-panel-public-financing-stadiums 

Curious to hear what he says, but not a fan of Kazy. During the WSM funding conversation he proposed selling the building for developing an apartment, which is probably the only time in my recent life I thought an apartment would be a worse use of space. 

What markets can get stadiums built without public funding these days? NYC, LA?

 

Even in Chicago the Bears and the White Sox are asking for public funding. 

 

It sucks, bordering on grotesque but this is the landscape unfortunately. Even with "new money" wealthy business owners like the Haslams, as opposed to families like the Browns in Cincinnati whose whole wealth is tied up in the value of the team, there isn't much movement in the direction of owners or the leagues footing more of the bill. 

Edited June 13, 20241 yr by snakebite

23 minutes ago, snakebite said:

It sucks, bordering on grotesque but this is the landscape unfortunately. Even with "new money" wealthy business owners like the Haslams, as opposed to families like the Browns in Cincinnati whose whole wealth is tied up in the value of the team, there isn't much movement in the direction of owners or the leagues footing more of the bill. 

 

You are correct in that, but that doesn't make the situation any less preposterous.

 

What sort of logic is there for a financially struggling city to be footing the bill for a $142 billion dollar entity? 

Missouri said no to the Chiefs and Royals extortion. God bless 'em.

 

Sox aren't getting s-hit, and despite Chicago's idiot mayor's giddiness, the existing Bears proposal is completely DOA. Also, the Ricketts put their money into their Wrigley Field despite some back-and-forth with locals.

 

Cities need to say no, demand profit-sharing agreements (Jesus wept, how is that NOT a starter) with guaranteed reimbursements by x year, and accept some teams will then move. Fine, let the new cities enjoy those albatrosses.

 

In England football stadiums are generally privately funded, yet, miraculously, life goes on. Amerian cities and local leaders need to grow some balls and demand the same (or profit-sharing agreements with signifiant ROI).

 

Edited June 13, 20241 yr by TBideon

Osborn Engineering was hired by City Hall to evaluate the status of Cleveland Browns Stadium and determine the cost of upgrades. ~$120M in upgrades will be needed before 2034, but the Browns told Signal Cleveland that they are only asking for the immediate and emergency repairs in order to ensure fan safety (~$10.7M).

 

If the stadium were to stay on the lakefront the Haslam's  would be looking to spend an additional $1.1B to improve the "fan experience". That's an enormous variance between necessary maintenance and repairs and voluntary improvements. 

 

Cleveland Browns Stadium needs millions in emergency repairs, audit says

by Nick Castele

June 17, 2024

 

There are $252,300 in immediate repairs – fixing fire doors, broken lights, cracking concrete and the like. 

 

Another $10.4 million in emergency repairs – defined by the Browns’ lease as repairs needed to protect health and safety – will come due by next year. The stadium needs new grease interceptors in its plumbing system. Pedestrian ramps are in need of replacement. Trash cans are rusting. Plus there’s a host of expensive concrete, steel and joint repairs to make, just to name some of the items on the list. 

 

The truly big repairs – $106.3 million of them – come between 2026 and 2034. The stadium’s scoreboards, installed just in 2014, will need their video displays replaced for $14.4 million, the audit said. There will be seats to replace, more structural repairs to make and video equipment that will go out of date. 

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-browns-stadium-needs-millions-in-emergency-repairs-audit-says/

16 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

If the stadium were to stay on the lakefront the Haslam's  would be looking to spend an additional $1.1B to improve the "fan experience". That's an enormous variance between necessary maintenance and repairs and voluntary improvements. 

Yeah something seems VERY off. First of all a BILLION dollars for fan experience upgrades is absurd. On the flip side just 100 million in structural repairs is VERY good news and says the stadium is very solid. 

I don't think most fans are interested in this new "fan experience." Silly me. I thought the "fan expetience" was the actual game. I think this new defination is more about one owner keeping up with some other owners. In other words it's more about ego and less about the fans. And as long as cities keep footing the bill owners will keep demanding it.

 

 

Now don't get me wrong. There are definitely some stadiums in Europe that are insanely nice. But there are also a lot that are total $#itholes and they still get packed for like league 2 matches with 30k fans. And these are teams in cities where they're not even the first or second biggest team. I don't know why the Browns can't just spend money on the product in the stadium and if they want extra revenue build on the land around the stadium. 

^ I know you already know this, but it’s because of the owner’s egos in their little boys club. 
 

To help support your point though, I was at Lambeau Field a few years ago. The museum, team store and in-stadium restaurant were all insanely good. The stadium itself though was clean and smart, but utterly functional. Then again, the Packers are community owned. 

56 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I don't think most fans are interested in this new "fan experience." Silly me. I thought the "fan expetience" was the actual game.

Right. I don't know who is clamoring for a better fan experience.   Maybe those in the suites sipping on cocktails during the game.  Certainly not the average fan.

20 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Right. I don't know who is clamoring for a better fan experience.   Maybe those in the suites sipping on cocktails during the game.  Certainly not the average fan.

I'm kind of on the fence with this. Just like movie theaters and even other stadiums have become way more comfortable in the last 10 to 15 years, the Browns and Cleveland probably have to adapt.

 

If they are going to make an investment in whatever kind of facility they get, they have to feel comfortable they can drag people out from in front of their 85" HD screens, plush couches and free liquor, and into the cold, to battle through traffic, so they can pay for their $100 tickets and buy over priced hot dogs, pretzels and beer.

 

Look at what has happened at Progressive Field. Going to a game at RMFH is one of the best stadium experiences I've had. It's a bit "Keeping up with the Joneses" but also making the right investment for what the future of pro sports will be, so we're not here again too soon.

 

It just sucks that they are throwing out a billion dollars with no real design or scope for either option they are willing to pursue.

20 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Right. I don't know who is clamoring for a better fan experience.   Maybe those in the suites sipping on cocktails during the game.  Certainly not the average fan.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Some of the most beloved stadiums across every sport, are old (historic), no nonsense stadiums. The real fans want a good seat to watch a good game, at a fair price. I'd wager most fans would prefer cheaper tickets to basically any of the new modern bells and whistles. If I'm wrong, fine, they're welcome to pay higher ticket prices for an elevated "fan experience," but I don't see any argument for the public to subsidize one particular hobby. 

 

Public money to have major league sports in your city is a dubious argument at best, but a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) to elevate the "fan experience" is ridiculous. There's arguably some benefit to having sports team both downtown and for the metro area as a whole, but I don't see any additional benefit to having the largest wrap around screen or any of the other bells and whistles, certainly not a billion dollars worth. If anything, fewer bells and whistles will encourage people to spend less time in the stadium and more time spending their money in the nearby area. 

Look, l'm fine with the millions spent on fan upgrades at Progressive field as well as the changes made to RMFH but we're talking millions vs. a couple billion. I don't know where the line is but l think we cross it somewhere between millions and billions.

 

I certainly want to keep our teams (and keep them downtown as well) so l think a resonable compromise is a re-furbished stadium on the lakefront. And if Jimmy wants all those ancillary dollars he can make them with the construction of a Browns village. Everybody wins, we get a better facility, Haslam makes bucks off of the development around the stadium, government kicks in with a landbridge and a re-configured Shoreway and finally the city gets to benifit from all that new life and activity on the lakefront. Presto-chango. Cleveland welcomes the twentyfirst century.

3 minutes ago, cadmen said:

Look, l'm fine with the millions spent on fan upgrades at Progressive field as well as the changes made to RMFH but we're talking millions vs. a couple billion. I don't know where the line is but l think we cross it somewhere between millions and billions.

 

I certainly want to keep our teams (and keep them downtown as well) so l think a resonable compromise is a re-furbished stadium on the lakefront. And if Jimmy wants all those ancillary dollars he can make them with the construction of a Browns village. Everybody wins, we get a better facility, Haslam makes bucks off of the development around the stadium, government kicks in with a landbridge and a re-configured Shoreway and finally the city gets to benifit from all that new life and activity on the lakefront. Presto-chango. Cleveland welcomes the twentyfirst century.

 

He doesn't want to have to compete for those ancillary dollars with the existing downtown bars, let alone the tailgates et al.

Can the city give Haslam a $1 lease for the muni lots on game day and call it a day?

24 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

He doesn't want to have to compete for those ancillary dollars with the existing downtown bars, let alone the tailgates et al.

 

Well if he wants a dome in BP his share will be around a billion so he'll need to sell an awful lot of drinks in his BP Browns vilage before he breaks even. I don't think he has the years in him. Even at those inflated drink prices in and around the dome that's STILL a lot of drinks to get back to zero.

2 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Now don't get me wrong. There are definitely some stadiums in Europe that are insanely nice. But there are also a lot that are total $#itholes and they still get packed for like league 2 matches with 30k fans. And these are teams in cities where they're not even the first or second biggest team. I don't know why the Browns can't just spend money on the product in the stadium and if they want extra revenue build on the land around the stadium. 

Yeah I’d rather have our teams take a page from Europe and play in old stadiums and just stay put. My favorite team Liverpool, which is a money maker, are still playing in their century old stadium and have no plans to move.

The "fan experience" reeks of the same stuff the Chiefs peddled which was basically upgrades for the high rollers in the suites. IIRC CBS had the video boards upgraded around 10 years ago? Arrowhead has ancient video boards by comparison and that was also factored. Another "upgrade" was implementing things such as "grab and go" concession areas. September will be my first visit to CBS for several years so I have no idea if those types of things already exist. A few newer MLS stadiums and arenas I've been to have those amenities. Perhaps increased cover of the existing seating areas to shelter fans from the elements?

 

My preference right now would be to renovate and by the time a 25-30 year lease is up surely to heck there is a decision or even action on major projects like the long term future of Burke and we are somewhere on extending the CVRR to Downtown which would have wider influence on placement of a stadium. Then maybe we can look at a new build somewhere else, or not. I hate this mantra that the stadium is a crumbling death trap. You'd think we were talking about some run down soccer stadium in Europe or Latin America. It's just basic at this point compared to most of the NFL new builds. 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2024Jun 17 by snakebite

5 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

Look at what has happened at Progressive Field. Going to a game at RMFH is one of the best stadium experiences I've had. It's a bit "Keeping up with the Joneses" but also making the right investment for what the future of pro sports will be, so we're not here again too soon.

 

I don't like the public paying for any of it, but with the Fieldhouse and Progressive, we see more than a hundred games downtown that massively inject people into the streets.  And, by my estimation, the renovations of both have come at a fraction of the cost that the Browns are asking for.  The Haslams want us to shell out exponentially more for a fraction of the benefit.  No thank you.

 

That being said, there's little doubt that aspects of the renovations are big draws to the ballpark.  Jacobs Field was a gen when it opened, but the injection of restaurants and standing room areas in right field have been a massive boon to anyone who goes to games, and that does encourage people to want to go back.  The current scoreboard is much easier to read than the old ones.

 

However, I'll also point out that a big driver of the massive attendance boom has been making cheaper tickets more available.  They replaced expensive, and often-empty, lower-deck tickets with affordable standing room areas that encourage people to come in groups and buy drinks at the game.  That is the definition of win-win.  Overall, it's cheaper to go there and get a couple of overpriced beers and a hot dog than it is to sit in the not-super-comfortable seats which are only a few yards away.  That's a big takeaway.  And while I would have preferred if Gilbert would have paid for all the Fieldhouse updates himself, he's also building facilities in downtown along the riverfront that will do more good for the city than anything the Browns have proposed so far.

 

Do any of us foresee the Browns trying to make it CHEAPER to get into Cleveland Stadium after these renovations?  Do any of their ideas make it easier or more affordable to go to a game?  My aunt and uncle have been season ticket holders since the Browns came back, and recently my uncle said "Getting Browns season tickets has been the worst economic decision I've ever done."  This guy has been a diehard fan, and between the stadium shenanigans and the Deshaun Watson drama, he's considering giving up his tickets.  When I heard that, my jaw hit the floor.  I don't think the Haslams realize the long-term damage they've done to the fanbase.  Certainly I'm not giving them another dime, and I hope Bibb fights so that the city doesn't pay out a penny more than necessary.

 

Long-term, we should be prioritizing what will actually help the city and activate our lakefront.  I don't mind letting the Haslams be part of that development, but it can't be a one-sided affair.  There needs to be reciprocity and mutual benefit for the people of Cleveland.  Not the people of Summit County or Avon, but the Clevelanders who live here and are being asked to foot the bill. The "fan experience" is about a mile-and-a-half down the list of concerns this city has.

 

Sorry, rant over.

Edited June 17, 2024Jun 17 by Chris314
Added bit for clarity