1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

where people with kids could go and not have to worry about their child witnessing drunken coitus in the back of an F-150. 

They gotta learn about it at some

point…

10 hours ago, TDi said:

My guess is if the studies they have done showed any bit of evidence that would help them persuade people towards the Brookpark proposal instead of the Lakefront they would have showed them already.

 

I realize the Haslams paid for that study but it's the city's stadium. Where's their long-term renovation analysis? I don't think the five-year audit counts as one.

^why should the city shell out money for a long term analysis if the Haslam's commissioned one?   Would this not be redundant and a waste of scarce resources? Aren't they suppose to be partners in this process not rivals or combatants?  Shouldn't the city supposedly trust the Browns?  I am under the impression that the five year audit is necessary for regular, necessary and responsible maintenance of a city owned facility.  A long term, and I imagine expensive, renovation analysis is needed more for a drastic re-imagining of the facility which is something the Browns want not necessarily something  the city desires with all its other pressing needs.  Should it not be that if the city spends any funds in relation to a long term study, they should simply hire experts to review the Browns report for the purpose of offering a critique  rather than commission a separate, and again I imagine, costly study

Edited August 12, 2024Aug 12 by Htsguy

Is it possible for any future MLS team in Cleveland to play in the same stadium as the browns, wherever they end up? I know other cities have arrangements like this where soccer teams play in football stadiums. It would solve part of the issue of the stadium being empty so much of the year.

^ Possible...YES!  Likely?  I'm not sure.  Despite the playing fields being almost identical, the current trend in MLS is to have soccer specific stadiums.  MLS crowds are roughly half that of NFL crowds and I'm guessing MLS doesn't like seeing half empty stadiums on TV, or the perception that soccer is playing second fiddle to football.  Plus NFL and MLS owners alike, don't like to share.  Maybe in the future if MLS consistently gets crowds in the 50-60k range this would be more likely to happen.  Atlanta United averages 47k per game and shares a stadium with the Falcons.  Makes perfect sense to me to encourage this trend.  We need an MLS team first though!

10 minutes ago, CleFan said:

Is it possible for any future MLS team in Cleveland to play in the same stadium as the browns, wherever they end up? I know other cities have arrangements like this where soccer teams play in football stadiums. It would solve part of the issue of the stadium being empty so much of the year.

The MLS has been actively moving away from sharing stadiums to dedicated soccer facilities. I don’t think there’s a single example left where an MLS team plays in a football stadium and I don’t believe they would allow such an arrangement for any new team. 

22 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said:

The MLS has been actively moving away from sharing stadiums to dedicated soccer facilities. I don’t think there’s a single example left where an MLS team plays in a football stadium and I don’t believe they would allow such an arrangement for any new team. 

San Diego FC will be sharing with SD State football but I agree, the MLS doesn’t want large stadiums. 

38 minutes ago, roman totale XVII said:

The MLS has been actively moving away from sharing stadiums to dedicated soccer facilities. I don’t think there’s a single example left where an MLS team plays in a football stadium and I don’t believe they would allow such an arrangement for any new team. 

 

Seattle Sounders shares with the Seahawks and Atlanta United FC shares with the Falcons (in a new-ish stadium designed with both teams as intended occupants).  I think they both just cover the upper bowl.  Still, I agree with everyone else that it's not the MLS's preference.

 

I think the Haslams already owning the Crew and Ohio already having two other teams would be bigger impediments to getting an MLS franchise than sharing a stadium with a football team.

57 minutes ago, surfohio said:

San Diego FC will be sharing with SD State football but I agree, the MLS doesn’t want large stadiums. 

Should the Browns move to Brookpark, would it be feasible to just downsize CBS to a soccer stadium? Demo the upper deck and the ramps. Construct a roof over the seating area. Limit it to around 25k capacity. Everything else is still in place. Locker rooms, luxury suites, etc.

 

16 minutes ago, marty15 said:

Should the Browns move to Brookpark, would it be feasible to just downsize CBS to a soccer stadium? Demo the upper deck and the ramps. Construct a roof over the seating area. Limit it to around 25k capacity. Everything else is still in place. Locker rooms, luxury suites, etc.

I remember reading somewhere years ago  that CBS is not the proper size for international soccer. ( it is not wide enough ). I do not know if it meets MLS standard.

Chris Ronayne is very impressive.  

On 8/1/2024 at 11:36 AM, Luke_S said:

Mayor Justin Bibb goes public with $461M taxpayer-funded offer to renovate Browns stadium, asks Haslams to respond by Aug. 12

Published: Aug. 01, 2024

By Courtney Astolfi, cleveland.com

 

Bibb, in a press release, laid out his offer to the Browns to keep them in Cleveland. That offer would amount to $461 million in city subsidies, including:

 

· $367 million ($227 million from increases in admission tax revenues, $120 million from Cuyahoga County sin tax revenues, and $20 million in existing stadium capital reserves) over the 30-year lease term, with a five-year renewal option.

 

· The city will turn the Willard Garage and the Muni Lot over to the Browns for their exclusive use on game days and event days. Parking revenues are expected to generate $94 million for capital repairs and improvements.

 

· Under the current lease, the city covers $1.3 million in annual property taxes and insurance, while the Browns pay $250,000 in rent. Under the proposed new lease, rent will be waived for the Browns, but they will assume responsibility for the insurance and tax payments. This adjustment aligns with the lease agreements held by the Guardians and Cavs, making it consistent across sports franchises in Cleveland.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/08/mayor-justin-bibb-goes-public-with-461m-taxpayer-funded-offer-to-renovate-browns-stadium-asks-haslams-to-respond-by-aug-12.html

Today's the deadline for the Haslam's to respond. I'm expecting to see some sort of public statement in the next few hours. I'm betting on an attempt to kick the can down the road. 

 

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

 

Glad to see the County strongly backing the City. With both the City and the County against the Brook Park proposal, that leaves the State and Brook Park to come up with 1.2 billion. That seems a tall order, and it may force the Haslams to reconsider. Perhaps we'll find out soon enough. 

for what it's worth, plain dealer editorial board backs the lakefront stadium

5 minutes ago, newyorker said:

Chris Ronayne is very impressive.  

We are lucky to have him. Some of his language was a tad cringe worthy at times I thought, but you can't deny his passion and his recognition of the bigger picture. Compared to Erie County NY County Executive Mark Poloncarz who rolled over and gave 600m of tax payer money for an isolated suburban stadium in Buffalo.

5 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Today's the deadline for the Haslam's to respond. I'm expecting to see some sort of public statement in the next few hours. I'm betting on an attempt to kick the can down the road. 

 

Glad to see the County strongly backing the City. With both the City and the County against the Brook Park proposal, that leaves the State and Brook Park to come up with 1.2 billion. That seems a tall order, and it may force the Haslams to reconsider. Perhaps we'll find out soon enough. 

Correct me if I am wrong but for the full development that was depicted in the Brookpark video to come to fruition there would not only need to be the $1.2B for the stadium and parking lot but a total of $2.4B to come from somewhere else besides the Haslams right?

8 minutes ago, snakebite said:

We are lucky to have him. Some of his language was a tad cringe worthy at times I thought, but you can't deny his passion and his recognition of the bigger picture. Compared to Erie County NY County Executive Mark Poloncarz who rolled over and gave 600m of tax payer money for an isolated suburban stadium in Buffalo.

 

It's not chump change, but the county only put up $250M, with the state picking up $600M and ownership of the stadium. 

 

The current Bills Stadium is owned by the county - I'd say Erie County made out pretty well, NYS not so much.

7 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Today's the deadline for the Haslam's to respond. I'm expecting to see some sort of public statement in the next few hours. I'm betting on an attempt to kick the can down the road. 

 

That's my expectation as well, especially with the County not making their position public until yesterday. I'm sure the Haslams knew the County's position for some time so shouldn't really be an excuse. The question will be what does Bibb do? If you're Bibb you don't want to look like your caving to the Haslams, but you also don't want to be seen as having pushed the Browns out of Cleveland and to Brook Park. 

 

I'm still holding out hope that there's an outside chance that the City/County are able to negotiate a land swap between the post office site and the Brook Park site and give Jimmy exclusive lease/development rights of the former stadium location. Seems like the real win, win. Jimmy gets to play developer and Cleveland gets to keep the stadium downtown while activating lower quality land. 

7 minutes ago, TDi said:

Correct me if I am wrong but for the full development that was depicted in the Brookpark video to come to fruition there would not only need to be the $1.2B for the stadium and parking lot but a total of $2.4B to come from somewhere else besides the Haslams right?

 

I believe to total development was expected to be $3B+, but the Haslams were only seeking public financing for half of the stadium development which was $2.4B. If they ever did make it to the later phases that included the stadium village my expectation is the Haslams would be returning to Brook Park/Cuyahoga/Ohio governments, hat in hand, asking for additional subsidies. 

Personally I think Haslem is playing games and wants to start running down the Modell clock.

 

Six months and, when/if Cleveland can't find a billionaire to buy the Browns, he's allowed to move them to London, Toronto, San Antonio, Austin, St. Louis, wherever, all of whom would give him a 10-figure sweetheart deal.

 

All this noise is just posturing so that the grifter can blame Cleveland, Cuyahoga, the state, and the taxpayers for giving him no choice but to move the team to an entirely new market.

 

Just my suspicion.

 

Edited August 12, 2024Aug 12 by TBideon

4 hours ago, Htsguy said:

^why should the city shell out money for a long term analysis if the Haslam's commissioned one?   Would this not be redundant and a waste of scarce resources? Aren't they suppose to be partners in this process not rivals or combatants?  Shouldn't the city supposedly trust the Browns?  I am under the impression that the five year audit is necessary for regular, necessary and responsible maintenance of a city owned facility.  A long term, and I imagine expensive, renovation analysis is needed more for a drastic re-imagining of the facility which is something the Browns want not necessarily something  the city desires with all its other pressing needs.  Should it not be that if the city spends any funds in relation to a long term study, they should simply hire experts to review the Browns report for the purpose of offering a critique  rather than commission a separate, and again I imagine, costly study

 

The Haslams aren't sharing the report publicly. It is possible that the Haslams consider their report, which they paid for, as proprietary despite it being a city-owned stadium.

Maybe I missed it, but is the idea of a stadium development on Burke totally dead? Is there some report out there saying that it wouldn't be feasible to extend the Browns' current lease until say 2030, 2031, somewhere in there, and build a new development on Burke thereafter?

53 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

The question will be what does Bibb do? If you're Bibb you don't want to look like your caving to the Haslams, but you also don't want to be seen as having pushed the Browns out of Cleveland and to Brook Park. 

I think if you're Bibb, you don't do anything.  I, personally, greatly respect that he drew a line in the sand, and once he did, other elected officials essentially backed up his position.  I think he's put Cleveland in a good negotiating position.  He hasn't given away too much if the Browns stay on the lake, but I also don't think the City loses too much if they go to Brook Park (most economic studies state that subsidies to sports teams are, at best, a wash).  

4 minutes ago, Dino said:

I think if you're Bibb, you don't do anything.  I, personally, greatly respect that he drew a line in the sand, and once he did, other elected officials essentially backed up his position.  I think he's put Cleveland in a good negotiating position.  He hasn't given away too much if the Browns stay on the lake, but I also don't think the City loses too much if they go to Brook Park (most economic studies state that subsidies to sports teams are, at best, a wash).  

 

I'm glad he drew a line in the sand too, but I guess my point is if Jimmy doesn't make a decision by EOD today and Bibb doesn't do something to respond, pull the original offer of $460M for example, then it isn't much of a line in the sand and he looks feckless. 

10 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Maybe I missed it, but is the idea of a stadium development on Burke totally dead? Is there some report out there saying that it wouldn't be feasible to extend the Browns' current lease until say 2030, 2031, somewhere in there, and build a new development on Burke thereafter?

I have the same question but have been too afraid to ask at risk of being ridiculed 😂

 

And my question extends beyond just Burke: what happened to the USPS site? The Flats? The Industrial Flats?

Well, I think it was stated that the Haslam's responded to the offer with questions, so that will effectively push the deadline.  But I agree that Bibb needs to stick to his guns now.  If the Browns ultimately decline to stay on the lake, Bibb should move forward with lakefront planning without the Browns.  It would be a shame to lose a major anchor downtown, but I also think that the City also has the chance to make something nice on the lake without the Browns and Bibb needs to keep that moving while it has momentum.  I think only a third of NFL stadiums are downtown.  It sure helps having more people downtown, but if we replace the stadium site with housing and office, the net result could be even better.

1 hour ago, GISguy said:

 

It's not chump change, but the county only put up $250M, with the state picking up $600M and ownership of the stadium. 

 

The current Bills Stadium is owned by the county - I'd say Erie County made out pretty well, NYS not so much.

Now don't I look a bit silly with the mix up.

 

Still I think if Cuyahoga County dropped 250m into the Brook Park site as opposed to Downtown I know where I'd expect the safer investment to be out of the two.

 

I am curious to know what the max contribution of the County could be. They were pretty clear today they can't afford and won't put up as much as 600m.

23 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

I'm glad he drew a line in the sand too, but I guess my point is if Jimmy doesn't make a decision by EOD today and Bibb doesn't do something to respond, pull the original offer of $460M for example, then it isn't much of a line in the sand and he looks feckless. 

If I were negotiating for the City, I'd do nothing in the short term, at least not publicly. If the Browns are pushed back to the lakefront by a lack of funds, the City's negotiating position will have improved, and I'd come back with a slightly lower offer to reflect that. I'd say it reflects additional costs incurred as a result of delay. 

 

In the meantime I'd try to keep the pressure up behind the scenes. The City needs a decision so that they can plan accordingly. But we don't need it today. If it takes a few more months that's okay, just make sure that the Haslams understand that the offer isn't going to get any better, and will likely only get worse. 

50 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Maybe I missed it, but is the idea of a stadium development on Burke totally dead? Is there some report out there saying that it wouldn't be feasible to extend the Browns' current lease until say 2030, 2031, somewhere in there, and build a new development on Burke thereafter?

I agree. If the main reason a dome can't be built in or near downtown is because of time, maybe a short-term extension will provide the time to secure and prepare a more ideal location in or near downtown, whether it is Burke, USPS, or Lakeside.  

This is only partially related, but I find the Gilbert/Blitzer Cosm investment intriguing.  I've often wondered why sports teams keep investing in bigger and better stadiums as opposed to investing more in off-site venues like Cosm.  I've often thought that in the future, sports would be played Covid style- with no live fans, but with everyone watching in these Cosm style movie theaters with way more up close action.  Imagine watching a football game at one of these places.  You could put cameras in players helmets and the broadcast could give you on field views and action.  

27 minutes ago, Ethan said:

If I were negotiating for the City, I'd do nothing in the short term, at least not publicly. If the Browns are pushed back to the lakefront by a lack of funds, the City's negotiating position will have improved, and I'd come back with a slightly lower offer to reflect that. I'd say it reflects additional costs incurred as a result of delay. 

 

In the meantime I'd try to keep the pressure up behind the scenes. The City needs a decision so that they can plan accordingly. But we don't need it today. If it takes a few more months that's okay, just make sure that the Haslams understand that the offer isn't going to get any better, and will likely only get worse. 

 

I think city/county officials are doing a good job looking out for taxpayers. But I do think it's important to realistically explore how vulnerable we are to Jimmy taking his football and leaving Northeast Ohio altogether.  That would be ugly but the NFL is so big they can just say if you want a team, you gotta pay $2B to build us a dome. And if you don't we'll go where they will. Like the Olympics does.

 

5 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

I don’t think there’s a single example left where an MLS team plays in a football stadium 

I’m sure there is more, but pretty sure Atlanta fc still plays in Mercedes Benz stadium 

 

edit: my bad playing catch up didn’t mean to pile on

Edited August 12, 2024Aug 12 by BoomerangCleRes

1 hour ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

I’m sure there is more, but pretty sure Atlanta fc still plays in Mercedes Benz stadium 

 

edit: my bad playing catch up didn’t mean to pile on

 

As a Saints fan, I hate to admit this, but Arthur Blank seems to actually want whats best for Atlanta sports fans. The funding for the new stadium was 80% funded by him, also agreeing to cover any cost overruns, and also has fan-friendly concession pricing. He owns the Atlanta United team too, so sharing a brand new stadium for both of his teams makes sense, and is the exception, not the rule.

I'm listening back to 92.3, today. I got to say how disheartening to listen to the talking heads and suburbanites advocate for further disinvestment downtown. I hear it all, from fans need easy parking to downtown is crime ridden. They seriously don't grasp the issue of Jimmy's playground not only taking away hotel guests, dinner guests, and more importantly the events that this space would take away from Rocket Mortgage. 

Why do other cities not have this suburban first, city last mentality?

41 minutes ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

I'm listening back to 92.3, today. I got to say how disheartening to listen to the talking heads and suburbanites advocate for further disinvestment downtown. I hear it all, from fans need easy parking to downtown is crime ridden. They seriously don't grasp the issue of Jimmy's playground not only taking away hotel guests, dinner guests, and more importantly the events that this space would take away from Rocket Mortgage. 

Why do other cities not have this suburban first, city last mentality?

I find a similar mentality across the country sadly. People in KC scoffed about having to walk .5 miles from the new Royals Stadium Downtown to the Power and Light District. If they think KC or Cleveland have parking or traffic problems then it just shows how sheltered some really are. They live in their suburban bubbles of convenience, driving from strip mall to strip mall in their trucks and SUV's and circling round the parking lots for 10 minutes to get close spaces at Target. Same way if they parked an extra block or two further from CBS if they ever actually go to games they would get in and out much easier as they are so concerned about. I wouldn't waste my energy on them. These people would strip Downtown until there is nothing left.

 

One good thing Cleveland has done compared to peer cities is we haven't pillaged our Downtown like a lot of them have and sent assets to the suburbs. All our pro sports teams are here, our main state educational establishments, our business community (for the most part), has supported Downtown. This isn't 1972 anymore and I'd rather not start now.

Edited August 13, 2024Aug 13 by snakebite

So no word from the Browns today? 

10 minutes ago, Henke said:

So no word from the Browns today? 

They probably responded privately

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

 Why do other cities not have this suburban first, city last mentality?

They do. In some cases the core city can stand on it's own and pay no mind to suburban haters, but in the US this is not the norm. In other cases the core city happens to cover a very large land area (e.g. Columbus, San Diego, etc.), so it isn't as much of an issue. 

the 92.3 giys are hard to listen to.  they were like, "what leverage does the county have? the haslams could find more private investors and do it without the county anyways" - thats the point, they should. also, the haslams will find some need for a 500 million dollar restoration of the new dome in 15 years and have their hands out.  we can't pretend this is a one time cost

Edited August 13, 2024Aug 13 by Whipjacka

Cleveland to reimburse Browns for $3.8 million in ‘emergency repairs’ to stadium

by Doug Breehl-Pitorak and Cleveland Documenters

August 13, 2024

 

Amid a flurry of media reports and press releases casting uncertainty over the future site of Cleveland Browns home football games, Cleveland City Council made a move on the legislative gridiron: Reimbursing the Browns for about $3.8 million in capital repairs to the city-owned lakefront stadium.

 

...

 

[James DeRosa, director of the Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects,] listed the following “emergency repairs” covered by the legislation:

• $3.3 million for pedestrian ramp replacements
• $19,894 for gutter replacements
• $23,179 for pedestrian ramp curb repairs
• $352,000 for hot water tank replacement
• $64,000 for thermostatic mixing valve

...

 

Since 2014, Cleveland has racked up $28 million in capital repair costs.

 

https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-to-reimburse-browns-for-3-8-million-in-emergency-repairs-to-stadium/

 

On 8/11/2024 at 4:25 PM, brownsfan1226 said:

I'm wondering if this is all just a (bad faith) effort by the Haslams to squeeze as many public dollars from all possible sources as they can, only to eventually privately fund a dome and/or accept a significantly smaller figure than $1.2B.  

 

That is the way the game is played.

16 hours ago, coneflower said:

 

I think city/county officials are doing a good job looking out for taxpayers. But I do think it's important to realistically explore how vulnerable we are to Jimmy taking his football and leaving Northeast Ohio altogether.  That would be ugly but the NFL is so big they can just say if you want a team, you gotta pay $2B to build us a dome. And if you don't we'll go where they will. Like the Olympics does.

 

i don’t disagree, but it’s important to note the landscape has changed in the past 5-10 years and  owners don’t have the leverage they used to. The issue has gotten a lot of attention since John Oliver did a segment on it and it’s one of the few issues where the left and the right agree! Nobody wants to pay for stadiums. Also, LA got two teams and Vegas got one. There’s a good chance Jimmy is not going to get a much better deal in Saint Louis - their voters aren’t going to want to pay for it either.

Edited August 13, 2024Aug 13 by mu2010

I don't think the county could afford to support the Brook Park stadium even if they wanted to. The county has some massive bills to pay albeit with some new revenue due to the sales tax extension:

 

1. new $750 million jail campus in Garfield Heights

2. new $91 million Board of Election/Health Human Services offices

3. guaranteeing $1+ billion worth of bonds for a cash-strapped MetroHealth System

4. $400 million-$700 million consolidated courthouse

14 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

They probably responded privately

On the local NPR station this morning I think they said that the Haslams responded to the city with a list of questions last week, and they consider that to be a "response."  The city is open to further negotiations.

 

Ronayne made some good comments I thought, including how we have already tried the suburban experiment with the Cavs moving to Richfield and how much better is has worked out with the Cavs back downtown.

 

An obvious one, but count Downtown Cleveland, Inc. against the move.

Quite the coalition forming against this move; Cleveland city government, Cuyahoga County government, DCI, the director of Hopkins has expressed some strong concerns, state officials response was lukewarm at best... I know we're in our own echo chamber here, but public reaction seems quite mixed. Other than the sport talking heads and Brook Park who supports this move? 

11 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Quite the coalition forming against this move; Cleveland city government, Cuyahoga County government, DCI, the director of Hopkins has expressed some strong concerns, state officials response was lukewarm at best... I know we're in our own echo chamber here, but public reaction seems quite mixed. Other than the sport talking heads and Brook Park who supports this move? 

Apparently there is a list of developers waiting for the stadium to vacate the lake front. 

20 hours ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

 

Why do other cities not have this suburban first, city last mentality?

Most cities have this exact same mentality: KC, Buffalo, anywhere in Florida…the list goes on. Most people who call in to a sports radio talk show think any downtown is crime ridden and they want easy parking. This is not a Cleveland only phenomenon. 

2 hours ago, TMart said:

Apparently there is a list of developers waiting for the stadium to vacate the lake front. 

Lol I will believe that when I surely see it. 

They sure aren't clamoring for Flats development.