16 minutes ago, TDi said:

Maybe misinformation was the wrong wording but so far the Haslams have only committed $1.2B for the $3.6B project shown in the videos.  So to me saying that they are covering any more than $1.2B feels incorrect for anyone to say at the moment.

 

Not trying to be confrontational at all but I don't think this is correct.   In all reputable reporting that is out there, plus directly in the press conference the Haslams did while in WVa a few weeks back, they've committed 1/2 of the $2.4B stadium build and 100% of the ancillary development which has been reported as another $1.2B for a rough total of $2.4B of the $3.6B that they would fund, plus 100% of stadium construction overruns.  

 

1) Whether or not the ancillary development would happen timely, or if at all, is a fair debate but I think its been pretty clear to the publice that the intent is not to seek public funds on the non-stadium build, nor should it be.

2) And certainly debate on the public 1/2 for the stadium is a very fair debate.   

3) But I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Haslam family/group is willing to invest a significant part of their own funds to the total vision of Brookpark. Whether or not you agree with the location, or have a personal beef with HSG is absolutely fair, and to each their own, but its not often that we see the possibility of this type of private investment in NEO. 

   

 

 

Don't forget the additional cost of re-configuring the area surface roads and highway ramps plus a possible RTA extension. The pace of ODOT decision making alone will add years to the build out. 

 

I still haven't heard where all the billions in investment are coming from. Unless Haslam is planning on paying for most of it himself l just don't see it happening. 

24 minutes ago, goozer said:

 

Not trying to be confrontational at all but I don't think this is correct.   In all reputable reporting that is out there, plus directly in the press conference the Haslams did while in WVa a few weeks back, they've committed 1/2 of the $2.4B stadium build and 100% of the ancillary development which has been reported as another $1.2B for a rough total of $2.4B of the $3.6B that they would fund, plus 100% of stadium construction overruns.  

 

1) Whether or not the ancillary development would happen timely, or if at all, is a fair debate but I think its been pretty clear to the publice that the intent is not to seek public funds on the non-stadium build, nor should it be.

2) And certainly debate on the public 1/2 for the stadium is a very fair debate.   

3) But I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Haslam family/group is willing to invest a significant part of their own funds to the total vision of Brookpark. Whether or not you agree with the location, or have a personal beef with HSG is absolutely fair, and to each their own, but its not often that we see the possibility of this type of private investment in NEO. 

   

 

 

I very well could have just missed it and that's on me. But I haven't seen anywhere that says the Haslams are covering 100% of the ancillary development or any of it really. I have seen that it is supposed to come privately which I thought just meant they are expecting someone else other than the public or them to cover all of the surrounding development .   But that is a lot different than the Haslams committing any of their money to the surrounding development in that they are just hoping someone else will see their vision in Brookpark and want to invest. If they are wrong, all we get is a stadium with a roof surrounded by a sea of parking.

Edited August 16, 2024Aug 16 by TDi

Part of me wonders if the Haslams are actually playing 4D chess. They've managed to set up this game with the City/County, such that if they lose they only get 600 million dollars in public money and subsidies. If they actually wanted to stay at the Lakefront they couldn't have devised a more ingenious plan. Hell, the City even gets to give them a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and look like they are fighting for the little guy in the process. I'm not saying we're watching a play, I don't know that, just that if we are, it's very well scripted. 

17 hours ago, GISguy said:

I went to Detroit for the bills browns game and it felt weird, like being in a movie theater weird...hanging out in a t watching a game in December. It also felt like a Warehouse to be honest. 

 

Could not disagree more. Also, it may not have helped that these were two non-local teams in an awkward situation. 

 

I went to a Browns-Lions game in Detroit ~5 years ago. Perfect use case: it was about 38 degrees and freezing rain. There was a ton of activity outside the stadium with fan fests, bars, restaurants, etc. But getting to go inside and take your jacket off was just so damn relieving. I can't imagine the dread of sitting wet and freezing cold for 3+ hours.

 

I really enjoyed Ford Field and felt there wasn't a single element of game atmosphere that was lost. Now imagine something brand new and far improved.

Edited August 16, 2024Aug 16 by BJBaes

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

I wouldn't call it misinformation

Speaking of misinformation...does anyone know what the actual condition of the existing stadium is?  Some people say that it was "hastily and cheaply built" and the location on the lake made it deteriorate faster than normal and all other kinds of stuff.  I'm really skeptical of those claims.  The Ravens stadium was built only one year earlier by the same architect, and its also close to the waterfront.  I'm guessing the architect basically used the same plans because the stadiums look very similar.  They are currently planning a $430M renovation over 3 years.  I know we get harsher winters here, but I find it hard to believe that CBS is in much different condition.  I guess it's possible, but I'm curious if the claims are legit or overblown.  My gut says that like M&T Bank Stadium, Cleveland only really needs about $450M, but the Haslams simply WANT another $1B in renovations on top of that.  I could be completely wrong, but I wonder if anyone really knows for real?

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Part of me wonders if the Haslams are actually playing 4D chess. They've managed to set up this game with the City/County, such that if they lose they only get 600 million dollars in public money and subsidies. If they actually wanted to stay at the Lakefront they couldn't have devised a more ingenious plan. Hell, the City even gets to give them a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and look like they are fighting for the little guy in the process. I'm not saying we're watching a play, I don't know that, just that if we are, it's very well scripted. 

I've felt this way all along. The Bears already showed us the playbook. I have a few personal theories:

 

1. I can see the Haslams telling CLE that any conversation not including a new build with a dome + significant public funding is a non-starter.

• In this scenario, the city has not acquiesced to either request. 

OR

 

2. They're more-or-less okay with the Lakefront renovation but want a significantly higher contribution from the city/county.

 

I'm more inclined to believe the first because common sense tells you a renovation - regardless of how extensive - is short-sighted. The city, meanwhile, does not want taxpayers footing the bill, especially a new stadium, and have dug in on renovation/equitable cost-sharing. Regardless, it would explain the "stalemate"/plans to leave. 

 

And it may well be the case but I just find it hard to believe that (in a vacuum) they view Brook Park more favorably. This based on, well, everything: cost, infrastructure, security, etc., etc.

Edited August 16, 2024Aug 16 by BJBaes

1 hour ago, goozer said:

 

Not trying to be confrontational at all but I don't think this is correct.   In all reputable reporting that is out there, plus directly in the press conference the Haslams did while in WVa a few weeks back, they've committed 1/2 of the $2.4B stadium build and 100% of the ancillary development which has been reported as another $1.2B for a rough total of $2.4B of the $3.6B that they would fund, plus 100% of stadium construction overruns.  

 

1) Whether or not the ancillary development would happen timely, or if at all, is a fair debate but I think its been pretty clear to the publice that the intent is not to seek public funds on the non-stadium build, nor should it be.

2) And certainly debate on the public 1/2 for the stadium is a very fair debate.   

3) But I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Haslam family/group is willing to invest a significant part of their own funds to the total vision of Brookpark. Whether or not you agree with the location, or have a personal beef with HSG is absolutely fair, and to each their own, but its not often that we see the possibility of this type of private investment in NEO. 

   

 

 

If that “ancillary development” isn’t funded by a TIF or some other tax diversion I’ll eat a cleat. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Part of me wonders if the Haslams are actually playing 4D chess. They've managed to set up this game with the City/County, such that if they lose they only get 600 million dollars in public money and subsidies. If they actually wanted to stay at the Lakefront they couldn't have devised a more ingenious plan. Hell, the City even gets to give them a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and look like they are fighting for the little guy in the process. I'm not saying we're watching a play, I don't know that, just that if we are, it's very well scripted. 

I don’t think they have chessboards in Tennessee. But also, even if they knew how, the Haslams don’t need to play chess. They’re going to get every single thing they want without compromise. 

39 minutes ago, Dino said:

Speaking of misinformation...does anyone know what the actual condition of the existing stadium is?  Some people say that it was "hastily and cheaply built" and the location on the lake made it deteriorate faster than normal and all other kinds of stuff.  I'm really skeptical of those claims.  The Ravens stadium was built only one year earlier by the same architect, and its also close to the waterfront.  I'm guessing the architect basically used the same plans because the stadiums look very similar.  They are currently planning a $430M renovation over 3 years.  I know we get harsher winters here, but I find it hard to believe that CBS is in much different condition.  I guess it's possible, but I'm curious if the claims are legit or overblown.  My gut says that like M&T Bank Stadium, Cleveland only really needs about $450M, but the Haslams simply WANT another $1B in renovations on top of that.  I could be completely wrong, but I wonder if anyone really knows for real?

According to Osborne Engineering, some repairs/maintenance are needed as with any stadium but the stadium is in pretty good shape for its age. The Raiders are asking for $7M+ already and their stadium is only 4 years old so none of what is described in this article screams ours is beyond repair   https://signalcleveland.org/cleveland-browns-stadium-needs-millions-in-emergency-repairs-audit-says/

Edited August 16, 2024Aug 16 by TDi

33 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

They’re going to get every single thing they want without compromise. 

Probably, but that's only because they've managed to frame this as an A/B decision, with both options being incredibly favorable to the Browns. If the question was 600,000,000 taxpayer contribution to stadium renovation they'd get laughed out of the room, indeed, it's conceivable that already happened, likely when they presented the first land bridge rendering. 

 

39 minutes ago, BJBaes said:

I've felt this way all along. The Bears already showed us the playbook. I have a few personal theories:

 

1. I can see the Haslams telling CLE that any conversation not including a new build with a dome + significant public funding is a non-starter.

• In this scenario, the city has not acquiesced to either request. 

OR

 

2. They're more-or-less okay with the Lakefront renovation but want a significantly higher contribution from the city/county.

 

I'm more inclined to believe the first because common sense tells you a renovation - regardless of how extensive - is short-sighted. The city, meanwhile, does not want taxpayers footing the bill, especially a new stadium, and have dug in on renovation/equitable cost-sharing. Regardless, it would explain the "stalemate"/plans to leave. 

 

And it may well be the case but I just find it hard to believe that (in a vacuum) they view Brook Park more favorably. This based on, well, everything: cost, infrastructure, security, etc., etc.

I think what's more likely to have occurred is that Browns were originally looking for a substantial stadium renovation. Towards that end their first (or first phase of their) strategy was proposing the land bridge to get the public excited about the area. 

 

When that didn't work, they reframed the issue and played a bit of brinksmanship. By flirting with Brook Park and threatening to leave, they brought Cleveland (and the County) to the table, and even got them to positively argue on favor of giving the Haslams $600,000,000 in money and special treatment. After all, it's actually saving the taxpayers $600,000,000 compared to the alternative. Everyone wins, Ronayne and Bibb get to show off their civic muscles, and the Browns get their special treatment. 

 

It's even conceivable that Bibb and Ronayne are in on it. Probably not, but they could have said something along the lines of "I don't have the political space to do that, I can't be seen giving tax breaks to billionaires. ...but if the alternative was..." To be clear that probably didn't happen. The Haslams could have orchestrated this play without the known involvement of the political power players. Most likely they just played into their hands. 

 

I don't think they do want a significantly higher public contribution, I think they did . They've stuck with a 50/50 framing and are arguing for it by proposing a larger 50/50 split. It's very clever. Half of 1.2 billion looks small in comparison to half of 2.4 billion. The City's offer has already basically accepted this framing, getting close enough to half that the County and State can fill in the rest. The Browns might actually prefer Brook Park, but even if they do, by pursuing option B they have gotten everything they could ever want out of option A, so even if they lose, they still win. 

Possible that the brookvpark option is the think past the sale menuver. also, by asking for the Brookpark stadium, it looks like they got stuck with the lakefront- while still getting 600 million out of the deal. Who knows.

 

It seems like there isn't much political will to get the public financing together for Brook Park. They must have known that before they made the plans public.

Is there any evidence that the Brook Plan stadium is actually financially possible? This whole process has been so bizarre and dysfunctional. Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in providing public funding for either location!

Edited August 16, 2024Aug 16 by coneflower

17 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

Possible that the brookvpark option is the think past the sale menuver. also, by asking for the Brookpark stadium, it looks like they got stuck with the lakefront- while still getting 600 million out of the deal. Who knows.

 

It seems like there isn't much political will to get the public financing together for Brook Park. They must have known that before they made the plans public.

 

Speaking of politics, any insights on how state help for the Haslams affects the other team owners in Ohio?      

Well guys, if this last bit of intrigue is true l'm all for it. Why? Because in spite of some publicly funded stadium pushback around the country l think for the most part cities are still footing a good chunk of the bill and here...we are too. Because the "ruse" keeps the team dowtown. Because l think Haslam really wants a ballpark village and he will fork over most if not all the cost of building one. Because we get a bridge to the lakefront. Because we finally get the lakefront developed. Because all of this keeps the energy and investment downtown instead of more sprawl. Because we really DON'T have the money to waste on a pie in the sky plan in BP.

 

5 hours ago, goozer said:

 

Not trying to be confrontational at all but I don't think this is correct.   In all reputable reporting that is out there, plus directly in the press conference the Haslams did while in WVa a few weeks back, they've committed 1/2 of the $2.4B stadium build and 100% of the ancillary development which has been reported as another $1.2B for a rough total of $2.4B of the $3.6B that they would fund, plus 100% of stadium construction overruns.  

 

1) Whether or not the ancillary development would happen timely, or if at all, is a fair debate but I think its been pretty clear to the publice that the intent is not to seek public funds on the non-stadium build, nor should it be.

2) And certainly debate on the public 1/2 for the stadium is a very fair debate.   

3) But I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Haslam family/group is willing to invest a significant part of their own funds to the total vision of Brookpark. Whether or not you agree with the location, or have a personal beef with HSG is absolutely fair, and to each their own, but its not often that we see the possibility of this type of private investment in NEO. 

   

 

 

you are correct...  but it doesn't fit the narrative. 

 

Jimmy and Dee could commit to a profit-sharing agreement for all public funders, and that would end debate. Construction would begin in months. 

 

But they won't, and now we're in a mess that will possibly lead to the Browns moving across states. That's on Jimmy and Dee fully, and no one should give those grifters any benefit of the doubt. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/metro/2024/08/the-fine-print-bibbs-cleveland-browns-stadium-offer-isnt-anywhere-close-to-the-5050-split-the-haslams-want-while-putting-general-fund-at-risk.html%3foutputType=amp

 

The fine print: Bibb’s Cleveland Browns stadium offer isn’t anywhere close to the 50/50 split the Haslams want, while putting general fund at risk

 

TL/DR: Might be time to say goodbye again. These financials are unacceptable on every possible level, and appeasing the drunk Muni idiots and billionaire grifters isn't worth the expense. 

When we got a team back in 1999, I wish we could have gone the Green Bay route.  If there's any other team in the NFL that could be owned by its fans, I'd think the Browns would be that team.

On 8/16/2024 at 11:08 AM, goozer said:

 

Not trying to be confrontational at all but I don't think this is correct.   In all reputable reporting that is out there, plus directly in the press conference the Haslams did while in WVa a few weeks back, they've committed 1/2 of the $2.4B stadium build and 100% of the ancillary development which has been reported as another $1.2B for a rough total of $2.4B of the $3.6B that they would fund, plus 100% of stadium construction overruns.  

 

1) Whether or not the ancillary development would happen timely, or if at all, is a fair debate but I think its been pretty clear to the publice that the intent is not to seek public funds on the non-stadium build, nor should it be.

2) And certainly debate on the public 1/2 for the stadium is a very fair debate.   

3) But I think it is also important to acknowledge that the Haslam family/group is willing to invest a significant part of their own funds to the total vision of Brookpark. Whether or not you agree with the location, or have a personal beef with HSG is absolutely fair, and to each their own, but its not often that we see the possibility of this type of private investment in NEO. 

   

 

 

Still not increasing my tax for a Billionaire playground in the suburbs.

Do it downtown. 

5 hours ago, TBideon said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/metro/2024/08/the-fine-print-bibbs-cleveland-browns-stadium-offer-isnt-anywhere-close-to-the-5050-split-the-haslams-want-while-putting-general-fund-at-risk.html%3foutputType=amp

 

The fine print: Bibb’s Cleveland Browns stadium offer isn’t anywhere close to the 50/50 split the Haslams want, while putting general fund at risk

 

TL/DR: Might be time to say goodbye again. These financials are unacceptable on every possible level, and appeasing the drunk Muni idiots and billionaire grifters isn't worth the expense. 

Those “drunk muni lot idiots “  as YOU called them.
Suffered all the heartbreaks. but still supported the team and filled that great old stadium when downtown was still a s**t-hole!🍺. 

3 hours ago, jam40jeff said:

When we got a team back in 1999, I wish we could have gone the Green Bay route.  If there's any other team in the NFL that could be owned by its fans, I'd think the Browns would be that team.

from what I have heard, the other NFL owners really don’t want to allow that to ever happen again, because they want to protect their fiefdom, so they have a bunch of rules now that would make it much harder for a city to ever do that again. 

17 hours ago, TBideon said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/metro/2024/08/the-fine-print-bibbs-cleveland-browns-stadium-offer-isnt-anywhere-close-to-the-5050-split-the-haslams-want-while-putting-general-fund-at-risk.html%3foutputType=amp

 

The fine print: Bibb’s Cleveland Browns stadium offer isn’t anywhere close to the 50/50 split the Haslams want, while putting general fund at risk

 

TL/DR: Might be time to say goodbye again. These financials are unacceptable on every possible level, and appeasing the drunk Muni idiots and billionaire grifters isn't worth the expense. 

To be fair, I don't think the public offer is just solely that 461m from the city, I'm pretty sure there will be a county contribution of some sort and quite possibly state funding too. 

14 hours ago, snakebite said:

To be fair, I don't think the public offer is just solely that 461m from the city, I'm pretty sure there will be a county contribution of some sort and quite possibly state funding too. 

Cleveland.com is a mouthpiece for the browns.  We saw this on how they have treated @KJP's reporting in the past.

35 minutes ago, cle_guy90 said:

Cleveland.com is a mouthpiece for the browns.  We saw this on how they have treated @KJP's reporting in the past.

The Browns have owned the sports media in this town for years. It pains them to commit any air time talking about the Guardians or Cavs.
 

It’s a full court press across all media platforms now. It’s evident especially on Twitter. Multiple Cleveland personalities parroting the same, tired downtown arguments in unison. 

 

A strategic perspective of the Cleveland Browns Stadium
By Don Iannone / August 19, 2024

 

The Cleveland Browns have long been a cornerstone of Greater Cleveland, symbolizing community pride and excitement, and contributing to the local economy and cultural identity. While the current debate around the Browns’ future stadium is heavily focused on facility location and financial issues, it is crucial to recognize the team’s non-economic benefits, such as fostering civic pride, quality of life, regional unity, and shared traditions that bring people together.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/08/19/a-strategic-perspective-of-the-cleveland-browns-stadium/

Another quality article from neo-trans. I don't agree with much of the argument - civic pride was unbelievable in the years the Browns left, remember "the Comeback City" - but it was a very good and enjoyable read.

47 minutes ago, TBideon said:

I don't agree with much of the argument - civic pride was unbelievable in the years the Browns left

I am a Browns fan and love going to games. However, I think most Browns fans live in a bubble where they think the majority of people are also big fans. The majority of people in NEO don't really care. 

 

I'm in my 30s, and the people I hang out with regularly range from around 25-45. Probably 75% of them couldn't tell you a single Browns player(outside of Watson because of the legal issues) and have no idea whether or not they won or lost when they go to work on Mondays. And Watson actually got a few friends who moved to Cleveland from other states to stop watching the Browns as their "adopted team". The NFL, and to some degree pro sports in general, just don't seem to be as popular with people under 40 as it used to be.  

 

They will go to a few baseball games a year for a different way to enjoy nice weather, maybe a Cavs or Monsters game, but most won't even go to a bar to watch a Browns game. NFL fans seem to be much louder and more obnoxious than other sports fans, so that keeps would be casual fans away even more who avoid their favorite bars on Sundays. 4 of my friends who don't care about football wanted to at least go once to see what it was like, so a group of 8 of us went to a game in 2022. There were 2 fights just in our section between Browns fans, and I don't think you could pay those friends to go to another game. 

 

A bit of rambling there, sorry. But I think stuff like this may be a reason why we are finally seeing push back against owners and stadium subsidies. The average person, and especially younger crowd, just don't care as much as they used to. Making games less convenient to watch over the last 15-20 years probably has something to do with that too. 

also owners have used civic pride as a sword too many times to bilk the public and it has become obvious that they can turn a profit on their own. 

there may be some amount of public subsidy that makes sense, 1.2 billion is a lot 

Not stadium specific, but relevant, I think, as Jimmy is one of the owners leading the charge for another outside infusion of cash into his venture. 

 

NFL committee that includes Jimmy Haslam to present framework for institutional investors to buy into teams

August 19, 2024 

Randall Williams, Bloomberg

 

 

The National Football League plans to meet in Minneapolis on Aug. 27 to discuss and potentially vote on allowing institutional investors to buy into teams.

 

...

 

The NFL formed a committee last year to study how the league might allow private equity firms to buy into teams. The group consists of its chair, Kansas City Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt, Atlanta Falcons’ owner Arthur Blank, Cleveland Browns’ owner Jimmy Haslam, Denver Broncos’ owner and CEO Greg Penner and New England Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft.

 

Bloomberg reported in May the owners were zeroing-in on allowing institutional investors to be able to buy 10% of clubs. Some owners would like the cap at 5%. The league’s owners would also select a small group of vetted firms to have the first opportunity to purchase stakes.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/nfl-owners-executives-meet-private-equity-stakes-teams

4 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Not stadium specific, but relevant, I think, as Jimmy is one of the owners leading the charge for another outside infusion of cash into his venture. 

 

NFL committee that includes Jimmy Haslam to present framework for institutional investors to buy into teams

August 19, 2024 

Randall Williams, Bloomberg

 

 

The National Football League plans to meet in Minneapolis on Aug. 27 to discuss and potentially vote on allowing institutional investors to buy into teams.

 

...

 

The NFL formed a committee last year to study how the league might allow private equity firms to buy into teams. The group consists of its chair, Kansas City Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt, Atlanta Falcons’ owner Arthur Blank, Cleveland Browns’ owner Jimmy Haslam, Denver Broncos’ owner and CEO Greg Penner and New England Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft.

 

Bloomberg reported in May the owners were zeroing-in on allowing institutional investors to be able to buy 10% of clubs. Some owners would like the cap at 5%. The league’s owners would also select a small group of vetted firms to have the first opportunity to purchase stakes.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/nfl-owners-executives-meet-private-equity-stakes-teams

Sounds like a terrible idea.

Civic pride is great but what is the opportunity cost? 

 

New Browns stadium for wealthy fans, many of whom do not live in the county bearing the cost... or more money for roads, sewers, schools, parks, etc.? I don't want the team to leave, but if I'm thinking about this like my own family budget, it's really hard to justify. Maybe the Haslam's "innovative" approach to paying for it will address my concerns, which I would love!

Edited August 19, 2024Aug 19 by coneflower

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

Another quality article from neo-trans. I don't agree with much of the argument - civic pride was unbelievable in the years the Browns left, remember "the Comeback City" - but it was a very good and enjoyable read.

 

Note that it was a contributed article. We're happy to share thoughtful/thought-provoking pieces.

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

Not stadium specific, but relevant, I think, as Jimmy is one of the owners leading the charge for another outside infusion of cash into his venture. 

 

NFL committee that includes Jimmy Haslam to present framework for institutional investors to buy into teams

August 19, 2024 

Randall Williams, Bloomberg

 

 

The National Football League plans to meet in Minneapolis on Aug. 27 to discuss and potentially vote on allowing institutional investors to buy into teams.

 

...

 

The NFL formed a committee last year to study how the league might allow private equity firms to buy into teams. The group consists of its chair, Kansas City Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt, Atlanta Falcons’ owner Arthur Blank, Cleveland Browns’ owner Jimmy Haslam, Denver Broncos’ owner and CEO Greg Penner and New England Patriots’ owner Robert Kraft.

 

Bloomberg reported in May the owners were zeroing-in on allowing institutional investors to be able to buy 10% of clubs. Some owners would like the cap at 5%. The league’s owners would also select a small group of vetted firms to have the first opportunity to purchase stakes.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/nfl-owners-executives-meet-private-equity-stakes-teams

The concerning thing is, despite the push for wealthier owners like Haslam and the desire to drive out old money owners like the Browns in Cincinnati, or the Bidwills in Arizona, the deals are just getting more egregious to reflect the level of wealth coming in to own teams. Teams aren't footing less with richer owners, they are just demanding more. The public is still getting fleeced even with billionaire owners who have legitimate money as opposed to families who bought a team 70 years ago and whose whole wealth is tied up in the value of the teams they own. Mike Brown might just ask for a basic renovation in Cincinnati whilst Haslam will push for a small city.

Owning an NFL franchise is much like owning a piece of art. It's value is in what somebody else is willing to pay for it. Relaxing ownership rules to allow for institutional investors just opens up the pool of potential investors.

 

And to snakebite's point, as ownership groups get wealthier their stadiums have also grown well beyond inflation. The current Browns stadium cost $290 million which is about $550 million in current money. About a quarter of the proposed Brook Park stadium. 

3 hours ago, Mendo said:

Owning an NFL franchise is much like owning a piece of art. It's value is in what somebody else is willing to pay for it. Relaxing ownership rules to allow for institutional investors just opens up the pool of potential investors.

 

In the first half of this metaphor, you ignore the stewardship role of owning art and focus on the idea of art, and I guess an NFL franchise, as a commodity. But that's okay, because most NFL owners ignore stewardship too. Collecting art is about stewardship. Owning an NFL franchise is a business. Incidentally, efforts to allow smaller investors to buy into art as a commodity has not been successful, for the same reason that minority ownership is worthless to most people with money. You aren't the owner. You vote on a few things and have a nice seat for the games. You might as well sit on the board of your local museum. 

6 hours ago, coneflower said:

Civic pride is great but what is the opportunity cost? 

 

New Browns stadium for wealthy fans, many of whom do not live in the county bearing the cost... or more money for roads, sewers, schools, parks, etc.? I don't want the team to leave, but if I'm thinking about this like my own family budget, it's really hard to justify. Maybe the Haslam's "innovative" approach to paying for it will address my concerns, which I would love!

Which is why I feel even more strongly about a lakefront location.   The public investment tied to a stadium rennovation is our best chance to get the shoreway fixed, bridges to the lakefront, and more public access.  If we turn this away, it's not like the State of Ohio will say "sure Cleveland, we will still give you the money to do these things."   That money would immediately end up building a new bypass around Portsmouth or freeway interchanges in Medina and Avon... 

 

The old saying is "money begets money."  And in this case, it's very true. 

Getting rid of the stadium is the best way to increase the use of the lakefront. It's a space hog as is the parking for it. Can we not envision higher and better uses than these?

 

BTW, ODOT agreed to redesign the Shoreway because it's outdated design fails to meet basic modern highway engineering standards, especially the proximity of two interchanges so close to each other. A boulevard is the best way to solve this glaring design failure.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Getting rid of the stadium is the best way to increase the use of the lakefront. It's a space hog as is the parking for it. Can we not envision higher and better uses than these?

 

That all sounds good to me, but my concern is that all the public money will get spent in Brook Park and the lakefront will be left with great potential but little resources to act on it. 

Even if the Browns move to San Antonio or London, Cleveland/County/State wouldn't raise $461 million or $1.2 billion for a lakefront plan; it's not like that stadium's hypothetical public fundings would be transferable.

 

And even if that money was reallocated, that amount would be pennies ultimately.

 

So we're still left with a dead lakefront.

 

It's going to take unique leadership courting billionaires, large businesses, and institutional investors to develop that area ultimately. Otherwise, we'll just be having the same conversations for decades.

35 minutes ago, coneflower said:

 

That all sounds good to me, but my concern is that all the public money will get spent in Brook Park and the lakefront will be left with great potential but little resources to act on it. 

My point above exactly. 

11 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Which is why I feel even more strongly about a lakefront location.   The public investment tied to a stadium rennovation is our best chance to get the shoreway fixed, bridges to the lakefront, and more public access.  If we turn this away, it's not like the State of Ohio will say "sure Cleveland, we will still give you the money to do these things."   That money would immediately end up building a new bypass around Portsmouth or freeway interchanges in Medina and Avon... 

 

The old saying is "money begets money."  And in this case, it's very true. 

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Getting rid of the stadium is the best way to increase the use of the lakefront. It's a space hog as is the parking for it. Can we not envision higher and better uses than these?

 

BTW, ODOT agreed to redesign the Shoreway because it's outdated design fails to meet basic modern highway engineering standards, especially the proximity of two interchanges so close to each other. A boulevard is the best way to solve this glaring design failure.

I think the single best case scenario for Cleveland would be a minimal renovation at the current location combined with a medium length (~10-15 years) lease. During that time a new downtown (or downtown adjacent) stadium location would be sought and procured. That could be the the post office lot, catty corner to be the baseball field, Burke, or somewhere in the eastern half of downtown. Where isn't too critical in this hypothetical (though I have my preferences). 

 

This way we have the stadium on the lakefront long enough to attract the funds that might come with it, but it will leave around the time when we will hopefully have fully finished lakefront phase 1 and will be ready for additional development. 

There's a bunch of money that's been allocated to the lakefront project already. If we just get out of our own way (e.g. remove the shoreway, create a landbridge) I would think developers would be just drooling over the lakefront land, even if the city doesn't have money to do anything with the land on its own.

 

I'm pretty neutral on the stadium location. It seems to me like a lot of people have the general concern that putting development downtown is a priority and so we're screwing ourselves by putting major development other places. I think this concern is pretty overblown. We realistically need to have dozens of walkable 15-minute-cities in the region, and there's no reason that part of Brook Park can't be one. Actually, proximity to transit and the airport makes it a pretty good location for one. Cuyahoga County and the surrounding area is quite built out. While I hate the idea of continuing to sprawl further and further into the country, that's not at all what Brook Park is. I think we should be supportive of dense urban development wherever it occurs in the already-built-out urban areas.

Compare to this area of Germany. The area in the image is about the same land area as Cuyahoga+Summit+Medina Counties, but it has nearly six million people. All the development is incredibly urban and incredibly dense. Notice how there are several urban centers of various sizes without any one being an obvious spoke in the center of the wheel. This is good urban design. Another example is America's most prosperous area, the bay area, which has several major economic centers as opposed to just one.

 

I think Downtown Cleveland is always going to be the primary urban center of the region. But it's healthy for us to have a number of vibrant urban centers. 

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

There's a bunch of money that's been allocated to the lakefront project already. If we just get out of our own way (e.g. remove the shoreway, create a landbridge) I would think developers would be just drooling over the lakefront land, even if the city doesn't have money to do anything with the land on its own.

 

I'm pretty neutral on the stadium location. It seems to me like a lot of people have the general concern that putting development downtown is a priority and so we're screwing ourselves by putting major development other places. I think this concern is pretty overblown. We realistically need to have dozens of walkable 15-minute-cities in the region, and there's no reason that part of Brook Park can't be one. Actually, proximity to transit and the airport makes it a pretty good location for one. Cuyahoga County and the surrounding area is quite built out. While I hate the idea of continuing to sprawl further and further into the country, that's not at all what Brook Park is. I think we should be supportive of dense urban development wherever it occurs in the already-built-out urban areas.

Compare to this area of Germany. The area in the image is about the same land area as Cuyahoga+Summit+Medina Counties, but it has nearly six million people. All the development is incredibly urban and incredibly dense. Notice how there are several urban centers of various sizes without any one being an obvious spoke in the center of the wheel. This is good urban design. Another example is America's most prosperous area, the bay area, which has several major economic centers as opposed to just one.

 

I think Downtown Cleveland is always going to be the primary urban center of the region. But it's healthy for us to have a number of vibrant urban centers. 

But that's not at all what the BP plan is. It's a stadium surrounded by parking and potentially a car focused lifestyle center at some point. It's more of a gated theme park than anything woven into BP's urban fabric (which isn't walkable as is).

57 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

There's a bunch of money that's been allocated to the lakefront project already. If we just get out of our own way (e.g. remove the shoreway, create a landbridge) I would think developers would be just drooling over the lakefront land, even if the city doesn't have money to do anything with the land on its own.

 

I'm pretty neutral on the stadium location. It seems to me like a lot of people have the general concern that putting development downtown is a priority and so we're screwing ourselves by putting major development other places. I think this concern is pretty overblown. We realistically need to have dozens of walkable 15-minute-cities in the region, and there's no reason that part of Brook Park can't be one. Actually, proximity to transit and the airport makes it a pretty good location for one. Cuyahoga County and the surrounding area is quite built out. While I hate the idea of continuing to sprawl further and further into the country, that's not at all what Brook Park is. I think we should be supportive of dense urban development wherever it occurs in the already-built-out urban areas.

Compare to this area of Germany. The area in the image is about the same land area as Cuyahoga+Summit+Medina Counties, but it has nearly six million people. All the development is incredibly urban and incredibly dense. Notice how there are several urban centers of various sizes without any one being an obvious spoke in the center of the wheel. This is good urban design. Another example is America's most prosperous area, the bay area, which has several major economic centers as opposed to just one.

 

I think Downtown Cleveland is always going to be the primary urban center of the region. But it's healthy for us to have a number of vibrant urban centers. 

We already have a set up similar to this with Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Lorain, Parma, Youngstown, and the other numerous 40-55k cities in NEO. The problem is we are only connected with highways that allow people to fly past each of them. 

 

This area of Germany has sooooo many quality transit options that all of these cities have basically become one. Even in the smaller towns in that region, car ownership isn't really necessary, or more than one car per family, because they can get anywhere they need without one. 

 

We just have disconnected islands of cities only a few miles apart from each other fighting for the same scraps. Which then makes each worse. Imagine the growth this region could see if we connected all of our population centers like that area of Germany. 

 

If NEO was a booming region, I don't think a move to Brook Park would be that much of an issue. Because there would be money and population growth to quickly fill in the current stadium site, and money available for Brook Park. But it is an issue because it's spreading our already limited resources out even more, while ESSENtially(see what I did there?) creating a community for a small and wealthier portion of the population. 

Edited August 20, 2024Aug 20 by PlanCleveland

49 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

There's a bunch of money that's been allocated to the lakefront project already. If we just get out of our own way (e.g. remove the shoreway, create a landbridge) I would think developers would be just drooling over the lakefront land, even if the city doesn't have money to do anything with the land on its own.

 

I'm pretty neutral on the stadium location. It seems to me like a lot of people have the general concern that putting development downtown is a priority and so we're screwing ourselves by putting major development other places. I think this concern is pretty overblown. We realistically need to have dozens of walkable 15-minute-cities in the region, and there's no reason that part of Brook Park can't be one. Actually, proximity to transit and the airport makes it a pretty good location for one. Cuyahoga County and the surrounding area is quite built out. While I hate the idea of continuing to sprawl further and further into the country, that's not at all what Brook Park is. I think we should be supportive of dense urban development wherever it occurs in the already-built-out urban areas.

Compare to this area of Germany. The area in the image is about the same land area as Cuyahoga+Summit+Medina Counties, but it has nearly six million people. All the development is incredibly urban and incredibly dense. Notice how there are several urban centers of various sizes without any one being an obvious spoke in the center of the wheel. This is good urban design. Another example is America's most prosperous area, the bay area, which has several major economic centers as opposed to just one.

 

I think Downtown Cleveland is always going to be the primary urban center of the region. But it's healthy for us to have a number of vibrant urban centers. 

I’d go along with this if you can somehow add 4 million people to the region. Downtown is already basically dead, it’s not like we have a lot of urban vibrancy to spread around. 

52 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

There's a bunch of money that's been allocated to the lakefront project already. If we just get out of our own way (e.g. remove the shoreway, create a landbridge) I would think developers would be just drooling over the lakefront land, even if the city doesn't have money to do anything with the land on its own.

 

I'm pretty neutral on the stadium location. It seems to me like a lot of people have the general concern that putting development downtown is a priority and so we're screwing ourselves by putting major development other places. I think this concern is pretty overblown. We realistically need to have dozens of walkable 15-minute-cities in the region, and there's no reason that part of Brook Park can't be one. Actually, proximity to transit and the airport makes it a pretty good location for one. Cuyahoga County and the surrounding area is quite built out. While I hate the idea of continuing to sprawl further and further into the country, that's not at all what Brook Park is. I think we should be supportive of dense urban development wherever it occurs in the already-built-out urban areas.

Compare to this area of Germany. The area in the image is about the same land area as Cuyahoga+Summit+Medina Counties, but it has nearly six million people. All the development is incredibly urban and incredibly dense. Notice how there are several urban centers of various sizes without any one being an obvious spoke in the center of the wheel. This is good urban design. Another example is America's most prosperous area, the bay area, which has several major economic centers as opposed to just one.

 

I think Downtown Cleveland is always going to be the primary urban center of the region. But it's healthy for us to have a number of vibrant urban centers. 

Comparing European urban areas to U.S ones always will lead to the American ones looking worse outside of a handful. Europe has different philosophies, history and politics when it comes to their urban centers, they built on them instead of destroying them to attract those that left. It is night and day. 

2 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

We already have a set up similar to this with Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Lorain, Parma, Youngstown, and the other numerous 40-55k cities in NEO. The problem is we are only connected with highways that allow people to fly past each of them. 

 

This area of Germany has sooooo many quality transit options that all of these cities have basically become one. Even in the smaller towns in that region, car ownership isn't really necessary, or more than one car per family, because they can get anywhere they need without one. 

 

We just have disconnected islands of cities only a few miles apart from each other fighting for the same scraps. Which then makes each worse. Imagine the growth this region could see if we connected all of our population centers like that area of Germany. 

 

If NEO was a booming region, I don't think a move to Brook Park would be that much of an issue. Because there would be money and population growth to quickly fill in the current stadium site, and money available for Brook Park. But it is an issue because it's spreading our already limited resources out even more, while ESSENtially(see what I did there?) creating a community for a small and wealthier portion of the population. 

This. And it isn’t even just a bunch of independent cities fighting for scraps in a population stagnant region. Cities like Brook Park RELY on Cleveland as an economic and cultural hub to survive. The big difference between Cleveland and Akron as opposed to Cleveland and Parma for example is that if Cleveland dies, Parma dies with it plain and simple. The 55 or more municipalities that make up Cuyahoga County simply cannot continue to exist if they keep on biting the hand that feeds them, and having what should be a city-centered organization in name relocate into a different city altogether. The suburbs have grown for the past 70 years while the city has floundered and the region as a whole is in far worse shape than it was when Cleveland was the population and commerce center. Continuing to allow the suburbs to poach assets is just slowly sinking the entire ship. 

39 minutes ago, Boaty McBoatface said:

This. And it isn’t even just a bunch of independent cities fighting for scraps in a population stagnant region. Cities like Brook Park RELY on Cleveland as an economic and cultural hub to survive. The big difference between Cleveland and Akron as opposed to Cleveland and Parma for example is that if Cleveland dies, Parma dies with it plain and simple. The 55 or more municipalities that make up Cuyahoga County simply cannot continue to exist if they keep on biting the hand that feeds them, and having what should be a city-centered organization in name relocate into a different city altogether. The suburbs have grown for the past 70 years while the city has floundered and the region as a whole is in far worse shape than it was when Cleveland was the population and commerce center. Continuing to allow the suburbs to poach assets is just slowly sinking the entire ship. 

 

While I agree with this sentiment overall, I also agree with @LlamaLawyer that building up around Brook Park/SW Cleveland is healthy for the region.  The airport has been there for 100 years, NASA for 80, and Ford for 75.  This area has long been important to the region's economic success and I think it makes sense to try to build it up rather than write it off.

20 minutes ago, acd said:

 

While I agree with this sentiment overall, I also agree with @LlamaLawyer that building up around Brook Park/SW Cleveland is healthy for the region.  The airport has been there for 100 years, NASA for 80, and Ford for 75.  This area has long been important to the region's economic success and I think it makes sense to try to build it up rather than write it off.

This is an important part of my point. If the plan were to build the stadium out in Chardon or Ravenna, I would be dead set against that. As I've expressed repeatedly, I think that the lakefront (specifically where Burke is now) *is* the best overall location for the stadium. But Brook Park is an inner ring suburb. There is literally a heavy rail line that goes to the site. I would think red line usage will increase if the stadium moves to Brook Park. There are a lot of people who live downtown and would love to take the rapid right to the stadium.

 

People are commenting that Brook Park isn't very walkable, and I agree it's not! But how will that ever change unless new development happens in Brook Park? Similarly, of course Germany has better transit than the U.S. I think the different style of urban design is a primary reason for that fact! Isn't the whole point of transit-oriented development that you're focusing on various hubs that are connected by public transit? That's exactly what the Brook Park location is. Public transit works well if you have a bunch of walkable hubs that people can take transit to and from (like European cities). It works less well if you one dense central area that progressively becomes more diffuse as you get farther from the center (like most American cities).

 

I'm as anxious as anyone is to grow the region, but I don't think you do that telling people and businesses exactly where and how to relocate into your region. If we adopt an attitude of "you can invest your money here, but it better be downtown!" that is going to result in less (not more) total investment in the region.