Guess I have a bad attitude about this whole thing… The 2 things I desire for the stadium ain’t gonna happen as long as the current folks are in charge: 1. Relocate the building away from this prime lakefront land allowing for proper residential/retail development, or 2. Dome the damn thing; preferably with a retractable roof, but a permanent roof would be better than what we have… Sorry, I’ve wimped out with the current milleneals.  That He-Man/old school play games in the ice and snow is for the birds.  I spent too much of my youth freezing my arse off at Browns and college games out in the bitter cold…  Society has changed.  People want excitement, but they want comfort as well… I’d rather be in my cozy man-cave with my 46" flat screen & the remote (or in a warm sports bar) rather sitting out there in the freezing cold… And of course, there could be so many alternate uses for an enclosed stadium that the outdoor concrete N’ steel bowl we’ve got now.  Everything up to an NCAA Final 4 to a Super Bowl; but with a lot of concerts and big events in between.

 

So my attitude to the Big Announcement is: Big Whoop…. To use the now tired old metaphor: this is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig … thank you Sarah Palin… I think.

 

I think we know why there cant be a dome or relocation at this point.

Guess I have a bad attitude about this whole thing… The 2 things I desire for the stadium ain’t gonna happen as long as the current folks are in charge: 1. Relocate the building away from this prime lakefront land allowing for proper residential/retail development, or 2. Dome the damn thing; preferably with a retractable roof, but a permanent roof would be better than what we have… Sorry, I’ve wimped out with the current milleneals.  That He-Man/old school play games in the ice and snow is for the birds.  I spent too much of my youth freezing my arse off at Browns and college games out in the bitter cold…  Society has changed.  People want excitement, but they want comfort as well… I’d rather be in my cozy man-cave with my 46" flat screen & the remote (or in a warm sports bar) rather sitting out there in the freezing cold… And of course, there could be so many alternate uses for an enclosed stadium that the outdoor concrete N’ steel bowl we’ve got now.  Everything up to an NCAA Final 4 to a Super Bowl; but with a lot of concerts and big events in between.

 

So my attitude to the Big Announcement is: Big Whoop…. To use the now tired old metaphor: this is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig … thank you Sarah Palin… I think.

 

I agree. And wasn't the "big" announcement already made like a month or two ago?

Other than a dome, what would have impressed you?  The improvements are fairly major and are actually prudent and pragmatic.  It is intended to improve fan experience and everything seems to.  What more could we have realistically expected?

I'm cool with this. I was expecting some upgrades, modernization and other customer service enhancements. Looks like that's what we're getting.

I love this! Bigger scoreboard with a unique design, additional graphics outside the stadium to make it pop, and closer seats to the field....make way for a new 12th man

 

EDIT: I'm kind of bummed that the total seats are dropping from 71,000 to 68,000 though.

 

Im good with anything that makes this place less sterile.

If they pay for it and not the city then perfect.

 

The only thing that matters is a good team. A crap team in Cowboy stadium isn't fun fan experience. I'm not watching the browns lose and think "this would be so much better if only I had a larger scoreboard and wienerdog races at halftime!"

it isn't either-or.  They can be trying to win AND improve the stadium at the same time.  Winning matters towards the experience most, but amenities help too.  doing things like adding escalators actually does make your visit better, so you aren't waiting for ten minutes just to use the one they have now.

It seems that the improvements aren't gimmicks to keep you distracted, but real improvements to a poorly designed facility.  but I wear my orange tinted sunglasses all year-round, so maybe I'm too kind. 

I like it. Although I was kind of hoping for field turf. And I wish they would of pulled a Dan Gilbert and replaced all those horrible orange seats. I hate those...Oh and a big chandelier over the 50 yard line.

If they pay for it and not the city then perfect.

 

The only thing that matters is a good team. A crap team in Cowboy stadium isn't fun fan experience. I'm not watching the browns lose and think "this would be so much better if only I had a larger scoreboard and wienerdog races at halftime!"

 

Winning makes the beer and hot dogs taste better.

Cleveland Browns unveil details of plans for $120 million upgrade to FirstEnergy Stadium

By SCOTT SUTTELL

2:57 pm, November 13, 2013

 

Cleveland Browns officials today laid out their vision for a $120 million upgrade of FirstEnergy Stadium that would take place in 2014 and 2015.

 

Owner Jimmy Haslam, CEO Joe Banner and president Alec Scheiner made a presentation this afternoon at the stadium that outlined a renovation plan for the 15-year-old facility that would include two new scoreboards in each end zone that would be triple the size of the current scoreboards; LED video boards with statistics, scores and information; a new audio system; and two new escalators, among other changes.

 

Reconfiguration within the stadium, primarily to accommodate the video boards, would reduce its seating capacity to about 68,000 from the current 71,000, Mr. Banner said. Some seats currently in the upper bowl of the stadium would move to the lower bowl, he said.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20131113/FREE/131119903

I like it. Although I was kind of hoping for field turf. And I wish they would of pulled a Dan Gilbert and replaced all those horrible orange seats. I hate those...Oh and a big chandelier over the 50 yard line.

that'd be tight.  and a punt could hit it every once-in-a-while

To me, you can only have the dome discussion when you have the new stadium discussion and we are nowhere near a new stadium discussion.

The improvements are fine, and as someone noted, had been previously discussed by management, so I don't think there were any surprises. They should make some nice improvements to the overall fan experience.

 

My disappointment lies in the shady responses to who was going to pay for this. I can tell you that I'm not voting for any tax to pay for this until they've invested 100% of the funds from the naming rights. I have no problem chipping in $20MM, once they front the $100MM.

^Agree 100%

When Comisky became US Cellular park, all of that money went into renovations of the ballpark (they did a good job too)

Where does the First Energy naming rights money go to? Shouldn't those funds pay for any improvements to the stadium?

Right to Haslams defense fund.

 

How much was the naming rights?

Right to Haslams defense fund.

 

How much was the naming rights?

 

$120 million.

And we didn't get a penny of that right?

And we didn't get a penny of that right?

 

We? You mean the taxpayers of Cleveland? Nope they didn't get a penny, but I don't recall that being a condition of any naming rights deals. However.... If the Cleveland Browns got all of the naming rights money (in this case, $120 million in multiple installments), and the cost of renovating the stadium is $120 million, then the Browns should be paying that. Yes, they just got a loan from the NFL so they could probably get all of the naming rights money up front. The interest on that loan will increase the total cost above $120 million. And that should come from the Browns' pockets, not the city's.

I was listening to 92.3 on Saturday morning and the guy on the air was reading directly from the lease. Based on his reading (admittedly a sports jock reading a complex legal doc), it sounds like the City is responsible for the maintenance and any replacements and repairs (including scoreboards) to ensure the stadium is in the top 50% of revenue generators for the NFL. I have no idea how that metric is calculated.

 

So the city may very well be on the hook for some repairs and replacements. But they've got to push back and make sure the Browns put a substantial amount in for this as well. I don't know how that negotiation goes, but I will say that I don't buy into the fear mongering that 'oh, well if the City doesn't pay, the Browns will just leave'. That's no way to have a partnership. While I know how important having the Browns here is to the city, the more I read / hear about the lease agreement, the more I feel like the City / County is getting a raw deal on something that is used as little as it is. For f@#k's sake, they should at least be compelled to put an entertaining product on the field.

This makes me want a Jerry Jones as an owner. Well at least his mentality on stadiums.

Plan would result in Cleveland picking up $30 million of FirstEnergy Stadium's $120 million makeover

 

5:06 pm, November 19, 2013

 

The Cleveland Browns' $120 million proposal to upgrade FirstEnergy Stadium moved a step closer to being a fancy reality.

 

Mayor Frank Jackson and the Browns announced an agreement under which the NFL team would invest $120 million up front for the upgrades, with the city paying $2 million a year for the next 15 years toward those upgrades from its operating fund.

 

The agreement, which needs the approval of Cleveland City Council, represents a present-day value of $22 million in expenses for the city, because Cleveland would be making annual payments until the late 2020s.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20131119/FREE/131119772

 

 

What an effing joke. Man oh man, Jeff Johnson's big-time legal transgression is a real shame, because I pretty much agree with every policy position of his I read about.

 

EDIT: by the way, I loved this little condescending flourish near the end of that piece: The Browns' CEO said Mayor Jackson “kicked our (expletive)” in the negotiations.

Since it is money that the city is already obligated to pay, I don't see how this is a bad deal for the city.

 

The original lease is another story, but this deal doesn't cost the city anything extra

^All I have to go on is that Crain's piece, and it describes two payment streams from the city:

*"$12 million from the existing sin tax fund of $24 million for capital repairs, beginning in 2016"

**$2M/year for 15 years for the "upgrades."

 

You may be right, Punch, but there's no indication from the article that this second stream is money the city is already obligated to pay.

 

UPDATE: The Cleveland.com piece lays it out a little more clearly. Depending on the liability risk the city would face, this deal may indeed make sense, but Johnson is right to ask for more info from the city's law department. Would be great to hear other voices on this question too. 

 

The most appalling part is that this is being paid entirely by the city of Cleveland, not the county, not the region. Our collar counties are serious parasites in several ways.

 

The most appalling part is that this is being paid entirely by the city of Cleveland, not the county, not the region. Our collar counties are serious parasites in several ways.

 

Isn't the $12M capital improvements coming out of the pot from the county wide Sin Tax? This isn't great for the city but it looks like they didn't move an inch on what their predecessors contractually obligated them to pay.

 

Now the collar counties that's another story...

^All I have to go on is that Crain's piece, and it describes two payment streams from the city:

*"$12 million from the existing sin tax fund of $24 million for capital repairs, beginning in 2016"

**$2M/year for 15 years for the "upgrades."

 

You may be right, Punch, but there's no indication from the article that this second stream is money the city is already obligated to pay.

 

UPDATE: The Cleveland.com piece lays it out a little more clearly. Depending on the liability risk the city would face, this deal may indeed make sense, but Johnson is right to ask for more info from the city's law department. Would be great to hear other voices on this question too. 

 

The most appalling part is that this is being paid entirely by the city of Cleveland, not the county, not the region. Our collar counties are serious parasites in several ways.

 

I some what see you point about "collar counties" but it is also true that they do not share in admissions or parking tax revenue or tax revenue generated from surrounding businesses (restaurants and bars etc) on game day.  Of course much of this is mitigated by need for additional city services (police, gabage pickup) on event days.

I have a finite amount of outrage, and this doesnt warrant wasting that precious resource. I'm fine with this, with the caveat that the original lease was criminal. I would try to tear up the whole agreement and renegotiate, but that's not happening.

^Come on, can't you get your blood pressure up a little bit for this? 

 

 

Frank Jackson stated that "the money was already set aside" s and it isn't really an extra cost they are paying the money they've always been paying.

Basically the Browns are taking the naming right money stream and putting most of it back into the Stadium now via a low interest loan from the league. They are business men first and didn't let the city off the hook for previous agreements, but they knew better than to hold the city hostage for more money. That sits OK with me, especially what's going on in other cities, cough cough, Atlanta...

 

What is missing that  I wanted to see included in the upgrades was troughs for the men's rooms. That was a character builder for any boy attending a Browns game at Municipal. It was a virtual gauntlet just to take a leak. Although it would probably safer now since you wouldn't have cigars and cigarettes being swung around you at eye level.

They used to have troughs at chardon.  I walked in there as a kid and there was a gap in the crowd.  I peeked in the trough and there was somethin stanky sitting on the bottom.  Very scarring

Basically the Browns are taking the naming right money stream and putting most of it back into the Stadium now via a low interest loan from the league. They are business men first and didn't let the city off the hook for previous agreements, but they knew better than to hold the city hostage for more money. That sits OK with me, especially what's going on in other cities, cough cough, Atlanta...

 

What is missing that  I wanted to see included in the upgrades was troughs for the men's rooms. That was a character builder for any boy attending a Browns game at Municipal. It was a virtual gauntlet just to take a leak. Although it would probably safer now since you wouldn't have cigars and cigarettes being swung around you at eye level.

 

This makes extended the sin tax all that much more important.  The City will have to make some significant and potentially disastrous budget cuts if the tax is not extended.

i like the look of it the big screens and it definately needs a modern upgrade like that, but is there any possible way at all to squeeze in more seats anywhere else to make up for those lost? an upper nosebleed level even?

^^E Rocc that is so wrong....

 

 

 

 

I keep reading about improved "fan experience..."  what that really means is more advertising money via more bigscreen displays

Yeah, I hope they dial back the logos a bit.  I seriously doubt that will happen.

This makes extended the sin tax all that much more important.  The City will have to make some significant and potentially disastrous budget cuts if the tax is not extended.

 

This is a big point.  But what exactly is the pitch to extend it that would resonate with suburban voters?

Their only hope is that enough people don't smoke in this day and age that people won't mind taxing tobacco and booze because it wont affect them.  On merit, I think people are sick of paying for facilities for multibillion dollar industries   

^That's what's scary: with the earlier votes at least there was a quid pro quo.  But unless I'm missing something there is literally zero benefit to a suburban voter for agreeing to extend the tax if it's not bringing anything new and the City of Cleveland is on the hook to pick up the funding gap for the stadium improvements anyway.

^^E Rocc that is so wrong....

 

 

 

 

 

Greatest post on this forum IMHO.

So basically Cleveland is helping pay to reduce stadium capacity, losing the city money, while increasing stadium advertisements making the Browns more money? All in the name of "fan experience"?

 

The NFL has screwed over cities and nobody seems to care.

 

I think investing $2 million a year for 15 years in new christmas lights would have had a better ROI for the city.

 

So basically Cleveland is helping pay to reduce stadium capacity, losing the city money, while increasing stadium advertisements making the Browns more money? All in the name of "fan experience"?

 

 

How is reducing capacity losing the city money?  The admissions tax is a percentage, so is dependent on ticket prices, not capacity.

I was just repeating that from what I've read on here. Not really sure any of that works.

How is reducing capacity losing the city money?  The admissions tax is a percentage, so is dependent on ticket prices, not capacity.

 

It's not that complicated. All else being equal, reduce the number of seats, you reduce the tax revenue. Are you assuming the extra lower bowl seats or higher ticket prices will make up the difference? It's a real concern. Especially since they are removing seats for a revenue producing scoreboard that the city won't see a dime of.

 

How is reducing capacity losing the city money?  The admissions tax is a percentage, so is dependent on ticket prices, not capacity.

 

It's not that complicated. All else being equal, reduce the number of seats, you reduce the tax revenue. Are you assuming the extra lower bowl seats or higher ticket prices will make up the difference? It's a real concern. Especially since they are removing seats for a revenue producing scoreboard that the city won't see a dime of.

 

 

I'm not assuming anything.  Was just pointing out that reducing capacity may not necessarily reduce tax revenue if the ticket prices go up.

I'm not assuming anything.  Was just pointing out that reducing capacity may not necessarily reduce tax revenue if the ticket prices go up.

 

You are absolutely right. Tax revenue is a function of tickets sold and price of each ticket. But you didn't point out any of these things in your fist post. You just jumped down his throat for having a very real concern. We have not heard anything about higher ticket prices. Is it likely? Yes, probably.

 

How is reducing capacity losing the city money?  The admissions tax is a percentage, so is dependent on ticket prices, not capacity.

 

Which is clearly misleading.