January 10Jan 10 1 hour ago, KJP said: Yes, they would make donations to support the downtown lakefront as part of the deal to let them move to Brook Park. Sounds like as much of a win win as you can have.
January 10Jan 10 It's in the Haslam's best interest to pay to demolish the current stadium. They wouldn't want the city keeping it open trying to attract events. Not sure how well the city would manage it, or even how long it would be viable with just a few events a year. The city should consider that in their calculus though.
January 10Jan 10 So Jimmy pays to demolish a stadium he doesn't own and wants taxpayers to fund a stadium they won't own. What a world.
January 10Jan 10 2 hours ago, KJP said: Yes, they would make donations to support the downtown lakefront as part of the deal to let them move to Brook Park. Exactly! If I were the City and County, i would be compiling a comprehensive list of concessions to let the Browns chew over And while they're at it, lobby the State for as much as they can get. We have a generational opportunity to remake our lakefront and a developer (Haslam) thats putting up over $1B to develop an eyesore near the airport. Lets not waste it. Edited January 10Jan 10 by B767PILOT
January 10Jan 10 What is next in the dome fight. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-whats-next-in-the-browns-stadium-fight/
January 10Jan 10 https://www.crainscleveland.com/politics-policy/chris-ronayne-reflects-midterm-wants-browns-downtown
January 13Jan 13 Another Crains editorial that I think many here will agree with. Opinion: Building new Browns stadium in Brook Park would undermine Cleveland's progress https://www.crainscleveland.com/commentary/opinion-new-browns-stadium-would-undermine-clevelands-progress ... The facts paint a clear picture. Downtown Cleveland currently attracts 4.5 million visitors monthly — more than triple the annual visitors projected for the Brook Park development. Our downtown serves as the economic engine of Northeast Ohio, housing the region's largest job hub, a growing residential population, and premier cultural and entertainment assets. The Browns aren't just a football team; they're an essential thread in this urban fabric. Downtown Cleveland's renaissance is gaining national recognition. We rank #1 in office conversions and among the top 10 cities for workforce and visitor recovery. Major investments are transforming our skyline and economic landscape: the new Sherwin-Williams headquarters, Progressive Field renovations, Bedrock's ambitious Riverfront Plan, and the North Coast Master Plan. The International Downtown Association (IDA) has recognized Cleveland as an "emerging downtown" with extraordinary post-pandemic potential. The proposed relocation threatens this momentum. According to economic experts at Econsult Solutions, LLC, moving the Browns would strip at least $30 million annually from Cleveland's economy and reduce tax revenue by $11 million. This loss would affect everything from public safety to basic city services. On game days, the ripple effect of tens of thousands of fans patronizing downtown businesses creates an economic surge that would be lost if the Browns move to Brook Park. And frankly, it’s unlikely that this level of economic activity can be replicated in a suburban location. ...
January 13Jan 13 One change that would help me swallow the Brook Park site is if the site had a rapid transit stop. That way downtown could still get a bit of pre and post game crowds.
January 13Jan 13 Even if a closer rapid stop was added, which I agree should be happening, I struggle with how feasible it would be to cram Green, Blue, and Red Line riders into one red line train from Tower City, all while needing to pick up riders west of Tower City... at least as the routes are currently structured. Unless they were adding a whole bunch of cars to one train, there would almost have to be an "express" route from Tower City, and a "local" line for the existing west side Red Line stops. Not to mention the fact that people would almost certainly try parking at the current Brook Park station lot, creating a snarl there as well. Almost like the lines were made to start and end downtown, and not Brook Park. But I digress 🤣
January 13Jan 13 6 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said: Even if a closer rapid stop was added, which I agree should be happening, I struggle with how feasible it would be to cram Green, Blue, and Red Line riders into one red line train from Tower City, all while needing to pick up riders west of Tower City... at least as the routes are currently structured. Unless they were adding a whole bunch of cars to one train, there would almost have to be an "express" route from Tower City, and a "local" line for the existing west side Red Line stops. Not to mention the fact that people would almost certainly try parking at the current Brook Park station lot, creating a snarl there as well. Almost like the lines were made to start and end downtown, and not Brook Park. But I digress 🤣 I was going to say the same thing--RTA already currently struggles on game days with 3 lines converging on Tower City. I don't see them being able to pull off adding enough additional Red Line capacity to make the service usable for the Browns in Brookpark. I'm sure the Haslams have no issue with this as they will want to maximize the cars in their sea of surface lots.
January 13Jan 13 Youtube video from councilman Kris Harsh posted yesterday: Top 10 reasons moving the Browns out of Cleveland is a stupid idea The "new stadium in BP" thread is still locked, but it touches on this stadium too.
January 13Jan 13 46 minutes ago, brownsfan1226 said: Even if a closer rapid stop was added, which I agree should be happening, I struggle with how feasible it would be to cram Green, Blue, and Red Line riders into one red line train from Tower City, all while needing to pick up riders west of Tower City... at least as the routes are currently structured. Unless they were adding a whole bunch of cars to one train, there would almost have to be an "express" route from Tower City, and a "local" line for the existing west side Red Line stops. Not to mention the fact that people would almost certainly try parking at the current Brook Park station lot, creating a snarl there as well. Almost like the lines were made to start and end downtown, and not Brook Park. But I digress 🤣 Not going to say this as eloquently as some others, but once we have the new trains w/RTA, you won't need to switch from light rail to heavy rail trainsets. It'll still be a mess I'm sure (I think back to the Cavs parade trains), but a transfer point at Tower City won't be necessary. If I'm not mistaken, the new vehicles should be rolling around the same time that the stadium would be built. Still makes a lot more sense to keep them downtown, but if it is going to BP, something to think about.
January 13Jan 13 4 hours ago, GISguy said: Not going to say this as eloquently as some others, but once we have the new trains w/RTA, you won't need to switch from light rail to heavy rail trainsets. It'll still be a mess I'm sure (I think back to the Cavs parade trains), but a transfer point at Tower City won't be necessary. If I'm not mistaken, the new vehicles should be rolling around the same time that the stadium would be built. Still makes a lot more sense to keep them downtown, but if it is going to BP, something to think about. Yep. I did remember that, which could make an express route feasible. But from an infrastructure standpoint, downtown still seems to make far more sense when it comes to public transportation. And as others have said, it's not as if there isn't significant room for improvement to get downtown, yet alone BP. Edited January 13Jan 13 by brownsfan1226 Typo
January 13Jan 13 5 hours ago, 3 Dog Pat said: One change that would help me swallow the Brook Park site is if the site had a rapid transit stop. That way downtown could still get a bit of pre and post game crowds. Well based on what Jimmy said, you can stay dreaming about that accessible rapid stop, because his dome is all about parking
January 14Jan 14 8 hours ago, Cleburger said: I was going to say the same thing--RTA already currently struggles on game days with 3 lines converging on Tower City. I don't see them being able to pull off adding enough additional Red Line capacity to make the service usable for the Browns in Brookpark. I'm sure the Haslams have no issue with this as they will want to maximize the cars in their sea of surface lots. As an out of towners that almost went to the stadium for an event this past year, I planned my entire trip around staying at a hotel downtown, walking through the arcades downtown, and dining downtown and off the lake. It's cool to be in the city when I'm used to suburbia or my smaller (and much less) urban experience in Columbus. There is nothing motivating me to go to Brook Park, and if I did I'd end up staying at the cheapest off-highway hotel or just making the long 2hr drive back. Just my two cents but I really don't think BP is going to attract anything. Also, I live right next to one of those 5/1 "mixed-use" urban developments called Bridge Park. It's nice for sure, but after a few times walking around it kind of loses its allure and there's really not much to do except bowl at Pins and eat somewhere. I think the urban environment of downtown sells it - for those of us who don't live in that its kind of like living in an alternate world for a few days, and at least for me, I find that super cool.
January 14Jan 14 19 hours ago, Cleburger said: I was going to say the same thing--RTA already currently struggles on game days with 3 lines converging on Tower City. I don't see them being able to pull off adding enough additional Red Line capacity to make the service usable for the Browns in Brookpark. I'm sure the Haslams have no issue with this as they will want to maximize the cars in their sea of surface lots. RTA with a de-unified system full of equipment and cars on their last leg vs. a unified system with new rail cars and the flexibility to create suburban line that connect directly to brookpark. If done correctly I believe it's possible. Hell, with a unified system they could run Special service on the Blue/Green lines (basically like the WFL right now) that riuns to the Brookpark stadium on Sundays and Special events.
January 14Jan 14 48 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said: RTA with a de-unified system full of equipment and cars on their last leg vs. a unified system with new rail cars and the flexibility to create suburban line that connect directly to brookpark. If done correctly I believe it's possible. Hell, with a unified system they could run Special service on the Blue/Green lines (basically like the WFL right now) that riuns to the Brookpark stadium on Sundays and Special events. You are very optimistic about the leadership of RTA. 😅
January 14Jan 14 Here we go....a design from the 1960's can solve our every problem. We just float a new stadium off the harbor, out of the way of Burke and open up the existing land for development! That time San Diego nearly had a floating ballpark Famous Irish designer and architect Eileen Gray probably said it best way back in the early 20th century. "To create, one must first question everything." It's hard to know if the city council members in San Diego were familiar with Gray or that quote or anything having to do with architecture in the 1960s, but they definitely were questioning the way sports stadiums could be built. Forget copying classics like Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. Forget new-age domes. Forget land, even. In 1964, the Chargers and future Padres franchise were nearly gifted a multi-purpose structure out where Great White sharks roamed. Where motor boats cruised by. Where no arena had ever been constructed before. Out in the salty waters of Mission Bay. https://www.mlb.com/news/baseball-floating-stadium-san-diego?partnerId=it-20250114-12295887-mlb-1-A&utm_id=it-20250114-12295887-mlb-1-A&lctg=235559334
January 14Jan 14 11 minutes ago, Cleburger said: You are very optimistic about the leadership of RTA. 😅 I mean this site at its core is full of urban nerds (in a good way) that hold out hope for developments and visions that we know deep down won't happen lol. It's fun to hope and dream big sometimes.
January 16Jan 16 Ohio AG miles motion to dismiss Browns lawsuit. https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports/nfl/browns/ohio-dave-yost-motion-dismiss-cleveland-browns-lawsuit-overturn-modell-law-haslam-sports-group-attorney-general-brook-park-dome/95-d3b3a640-f17d-4814-93d3-09afa2e611d1
January 16Jan 16 Yost's filing against Browns' Modell Law suit 'shows state wants Browns in Cleveland' https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/dave-yost-fights-browns-lawsuit-over-modell-law Interesting POV from a Case professor. Says Yost coming to defense of state law was not surprising but strong language was. Suggests the state prefers the team stay in Cleveland. Or Yost is using it to help is hopes running for governor next year, knowing Haslam is not popular, especially in NEO.
January 16Jan 16 Hmm. Does that mean no money from the state? If that’s the case, no money from Cleveland, no money from Cuyahoga County and no money from Ohio. Go team. nothing like building a $2 billion development with only the city of Brook Park on your side.
January 16Jan 16 Just now, Htsguy said: Hmm. Does that mean no money from the state? If that’s the case, no money from Cleveland, no money from Cuyahoga County and no money from Ohio. Go team. nothing like building a $2 billion development with only the city of Brook Park on your side. By the way, before everyone jumps all over my post, I know, Yost doesn’t speak for the rest of the state government.
January 16Jan 16 12 minutes ago, Htsguy said: By the way, before everyone jumps all over my post, I know, Yost doesn’t speak for the rest of the state government. Maybe not the legislature, but you would think he and DeWine had a conversation before he filed this suit.
January 16Jan 16 I get the feeling that Cleveland and Brookpark will do another land swap like what happened with NASA and the IX Center.
January 16Jan 16 5 minutes ago, dski44 said: I get the feeling that Cleveland and Brookpark will do another land swap like what happened with NASA and the IX Center. How does that benefit the city in any way vs just keeping them in downtown? If they're going to move to BP, BP should have to shoulder the burden, not Cleveland. Edited January 16Jan 16 by GISguy
January 16Jan 16 If the new stadium is technically in Cleveland, I assume Cleveland would be able to collect income tax from the players, correct?
January 16Jan 16 Barring deferments - and BOY is that going to be the future of professional athlete compensations - yes, Browns players would owe 2.5% for home (and away?) games. Visiting players would still be immune (2015 Jock tax decision) .
January 16Jan 16 40 minutes ago, TBideon said: Barring deferments - and BOY is that going to be the future of professional athlete compensations - yes, Browns players would owe 2.5% for home (and away?) games. Visiting players would still be immune (2015 Jock tax decision) . First of all -Browns Players have some split arrangements with the City of Berea And city of Cleveland for the city (2.5%) income tax withheld as they practice in Berea and play in Cleveland. I would assume it is .0125 to Berea and .0125 to Cleveland on earned wages. The same goes for the Cavs - They split with Independece ( .0125 to Independence ) and .0125 to Cleveland. When the Cavs move their entire training facility in 3 years back downtown then Cleveland collects 2.5% As far as the Visiting jock tax - the visiting NFL player pays 2.5% on 1/17 of his salary. The percentage applies to MLB, NBA & AHL and other sport. Under this method, the number of games played in Cleveland was divided by the total number of games in the season to determine the percentage of the athlete's game income that would be assessed the 2% Cleveland income tax.May 26, 2015
January 16Jan 16 You sure about the visiting jocks tax? I thought the courts ruled it unconstitutional in '15.
January 16Jan 16 2 hours ago, TBideon said: You sure about the visiting jocks tax? I thought the courts ruled it unconstitutional in '15. In reaching the Court's decision, Justice Lanzinger found that "[d]ue process requires an allocation that reasonably associates the amount of compensation taxed with work the taxpayer performed within the city," she reasoned. "By using the games-played method, Cleveland has reached extraterritorially, beyond its power to tax. Cleveland's power to tax reaches only that portion of a nonresident's compensation that was earned by work performed in Cleveland. The games-played method reaches income for work that was performed outside of Cleveland, and thus Cleveland's income tax violates due process as applied to NFL players https://www.reminger.com/report-498
January 16Jan 16 Interview with Kucinich. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-1-on-1-interview-with-man-behind-law-blocking-cleveland-browns-move/
January 16Jan 16 4 hours ago, GISguy said: How does that benefit the city in any way vs just keeping them in downtown? If they're going to move to BP, BP should have to shoulder the burden, not Cleveland. I agree. I just think this is how they get around the Modell Law.
January 17Jan 17 6 hours ago, GISguy said: How does that benefit the city in any way vs just keeping them in downtown? If they're going to move to BP, BP should have to shoulder the burden, not Cleveland. Hardly, in this current scenario, BP gets all the tax revenue. They wouldn't be expected to cover all of security and traffic
January 17Jan 17 The Modell law is specific to the facility, not the city. (Of course, if Haslam strikes a deal with Cleveland everything is on the table.) The way things are shaping up it seems the majority of public money will be coming from “taxes” on the new development. It makes sense- Brook Park has little to give up front. It’s hard to know how the math works out exactly but I can’t see a world where Brook Park makes out big. Jimmy owns everything, it’s going to be abated, and the public contribution will be siphoned off before Brook Park gets its cut. I was totally shocked to hear Griffin bring up a land swap early on in this process in a radio interview. Other than pride and maybe sucking some retail from the burbs there’s no benefit. The location isn’t helping out other Cleveland businesses either way. Usually in these deals the city kicks in big but with an isolated private island of a project like this why even take on the risk?
January 17Jan 17 13 hours ago, ITakeTheRapid said: I was totally shocked to hear Griffin bring up a land swap early on in this process in a radio interview. Other than pride and maybe sucking some retail from the burbs there’s no benefit. The location isn’t helping out other Cleveland businesses either way. Usually in these deals the city kicks in big but with an isolated private island of a project like this why even take on the risk? Doesn't the city own the adjacent airport property, and couldn't this development potentially aid the airport (if not now, 50 years from now)?
January 17Jan 17 18 minutes ago, Foraker said: Doesn't the city own the adjacent airport property, and couldn't this development potentially aid the airport (if not now, 50 years from now)? That's what I'd rather see the land cleaned up and set aside for, potential future airport expansion. Especially when the alternative is a new football stadium.
January 17Jan 17 3 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said: That's what I'd rather see the land cleaned up and set aside for, potential future airport expansion. Especially when the alternative is a new football stadium. I would too -- but second best would be to have zoning control 50 years from now when "Haslam's Pet Stadium" (built without city dollars) ends its life.
January 21Jan 21 2 Law professors view on the Modell Law. https://www.crainscleveland.com/sports-recreation/modell-law-might-not-keep-browns-cleveland
January 21Jan 21 Most interesting part of this story, to me: Quote Sources say the Haslams have been stunned by the stadium backlash, which has come from all sides: city, county and state politicians, along with local media outlets and fans. They believe the Brook Park stadium would be “transformational” for Cleveland, allowing the city to attract the type of events (Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours, Taylor Swift concerts) that are unavailable now. The Haslams have also spent more than $6.5 million on political causes over the last two years alone, according to Cleveland.com, with much of that money going to Republicans. But there doesn’t yet seem to be much political support — locally or in Columbus — for using significant taxpayer funds on a project that helps the Browns leave Cleveland. Ultimately, it could be money — not the Modell Law — that drives the Haslams back to the negotiating table, Chaffee said. “The Haslams have already made substantial moves toward Brook Park, so it’s going to be difficult to undo what they’ve done so far and the costs associated with it,” he said. “But if the city and the county are able to offer enough, probably the Browns and the Haslams could undo what has happened.”
January 21Jan 21 I don't understand how the Haslem's are even remotely surprised by the backlash. Are they really that insulated from reality that they thought the city and county would just fall in line when they did their rug pull on the lakefront? The second paragraph has big "but I bribed donated to all the right people!" Not that I have much respect for the Statehouse (but I'll stop there to avoid going off topic), I at least have to give them credit for not giving in to what Haslem was trying to do.
January 21Jan 21 9 minutes ago, CLEeng said: I don't understand how the Haslem's are even remotely surprised by the backlash. Are they really that insulated from reality that they thought the city and county would just fall in line when they did their rug pull on the lakefront? The second paragraph has big "but I bribed donated to all the right people!" Not that I have much respect for the Statehouse (but I'll stop there to avoid going off topic), I at least have to give them credit for not giving in to what Haslem was trying to do. If you look at how this all played out, the talking points etc. it is so obvious that Haslam and Co. put way too much stake in relying on a backlash against urban urban residents and Democratic leaders.
January 21Jan 21 the city is still a third of the county population. They'd need the suburbs to be fully behind the move to get the county support. people that live in the suburbs have a lot of interests - some like the browns downtown, some don't want to give over a billion dollars to a sports franchise, some hate the browns and believe the haslams don't deserve their time. so, to me, it makes sense that the county is in a position to stand up to the team. And, tho there has been a lot of speculation on this board about corruption and bribes between the haslams and state officials, there is no evidence the state won't back the county's play. I think the Haslams really underestimated how much people don't like them. on a personal level.
January 21Jan 21 It's all connected to Jimmy's hail mary contract with the serial rapist. If things had worked out and the Browns a legitimate contender with a franchise quarterback, they'd be starting construction in Brookpark later this year with billions in gifts from the city, five counties and state. Especially if we had a Bowl appearance by the rapist's third year. Jimmy swung big, missed bigger, and now it's an impossible mess.
January 21Jan 21 1 hour ago, CLEeng said: I don't understand how the Haslem's are even remotely surprised by the backlash.
January 21Jan 21 2 hours ago, coneflower said: Most interesting part of this story, to me: I’m not the biggest Taylor Swift fan by any means, but I know she played FES in 2017. I don’t think the venue had anything to do with her skipping Cleveland during her most recent tour. She opened both tours in the same arena in Glendale, AZ. I’m sure there are tons of venues that got both dates. Just another bogus Haslam talking point.
January 21Jan 21 I'm not a lawyer but l never thought the Modell law would hold up in court. If anything keeps the Browns downtown l think it will come down to money. Haslam wants half of 2.4 billion to come from the public plus another 2-3 million for roads around BP. I didn't think that was feasible then and still don't now. I know Haslam sees a big payoff for him IF he can pull off BP but if not, then a 1.2 billion stadium downtown, half of which would be public dollars makes by far the most fiscal sense. He won't like it but if he wants to keep the team here he may not have a choice.
January 21Jan 21 53 minutes ago, Henke said: I’m not the biggest Taylor Swift fan by any means, but I know she played FES in 2017. I don’t think the venue had anything to do with her skipping Cleveland during her most recent tour. Many of her tour dates were in outdoor NFL stadiums including Pittsburgh and Cincy. In Nashville she performed in the pouring rain and as I understand it that was hugely memorable for the Swifties. To the point above about county support, people are still super pissed about increased property taxes, especially in Cuyahoga which has the highest rates. This is the worst time to be asking taxpayers for money. I don’t think voters are going to push Ronayne. I don’t know what would happen if the team threaten to leave altogether but I sense that would be a disaster. And after last night, I doubt Columbus wants our pitiful team. Edited January 21Jan 21 by coneflower
January 22Jan 22 2 hours ago, Henke said: I’m not the biggest Taylor Swift fan by any means, but I know she played FES in 2017. I don’t think the venue had anything to do with her skipping Cleveland during her most recent tour. She opened both tours in the same arena in Glendale, AZ. I’m sure there are tons of venues that got both dates. Just another bogus Haslam talking point. She literally just played in Cinci's open air stadium. Using her concerts as an excuse to build a dome in Brook Park is probably the dumbest thing I've heard. I'm frankly astonished how so many talking heads in the media don't recognize this.
Create an account or sign in to comment