20 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Haslams’ major announcement(s)
By Ken Prendergast / April 17, 2023

 

Cleveland Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and Berea Mayor Cyril Kleem, Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne and others are due to make one or more big announcements starting next week that will include the lakefront football stadium, the Browns’ Berea campus, mixed-use developments around both plus a relocated Shoreway. The announcements will be about changes intended to activate the downtown lakefront by the end of this decade in ways it hasn’t been since the 1930s and to create a year-round fan-friendly village around the team’s suburban headquarters and practice facility, according to two sources familiar with the developments.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/04/17/haslams-major-announcements/

 

You got mentioned on WTAM again.

11 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

The more I sit on this potential plan/news the more it’s hard to believe, it feels like season ticket holders wouldnt be to be keen on driving 2hrs every Sunday. Also so many sponsors/corporate relationships that will be on pause for 3 years while they’re gone
 

maybe this leaked talk is just to get the public up in arms and help move forward the haslems real agenda with the city, moving the team for 3 years 2hrs away with the best formed team in decades is really hard to believe 

 

Major backlash in my FB Browns group to the proposal.   On a par of how Columbus people would react if it was proposed that Ohio State home games, or even the scarlet and grey game, be played here.

It would only be fitting that the Browns go to the Super Bowl during a season when they are playing elsewhere.

31 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Assuming they play somewhere else, I assume that would be in Columbus? I know it has not been mentioned but where else could it be? The MAC schools in NE Ohio have stadiums that are too small and not enough amenities to support a temporary home for the NFL 

T-Town does not seem like it would be appropriate either. 

Columbus would have the amenities and the stadium size to work. The other benefit to Columbus is that it plants the flag and further reinforces Columbus as a Browns town as it has been strongly trending toward the Bengals in recent years. 

I wonder if the Bengals would have anything to say about this...

38 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Assuming they play somewhere else, I assume that would be in Columbus? I know it has not been mentioned but where else could it be? The MAC schools in NE Ohio have stadiums that are too small and not enough amenities to support a temporary home for the NFL 

T-Town does not seem like it would be appropriate either. 

Columbus would have the amenities and the stadium size to work. The other benefit to Columbus is that it plants the flag and further reinforces Columbus as a Browns town as it has been strongly trending toward the Bengals in recent years. 

It was actually more than "mentioned".  Playing in Columbus was a key point in Ken's article yesterday and has been discussed at length in this thread since yesterday.

20 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

It would only be fitting that the Browns go to the Super Bowl during a season when they are playing elsewhere.

Well, I don't think THAT will be a problem.

They've backed off from the idea:

https://www.si.com/nfl/browns/news/browns-wont-leave-cleveland-amidst-stadium-work

2 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

It was actually more than "mentioned".  Playing in Columbus was a key point in Ken's article yesterday and has been discussed at length in this thread since yesterday.

If Cleveland is spending billions on another mostly empty, refurbished, god-awfully located stadium (which I doubt) and Columbus gets 2 or 3 years of Browns football (which I also doubt), all in exchange for some vague lakefront development promises (which I doubt), then I would hope city leaders would write a response to Jimmy and Dee that begins with "Go" and ends with F-K Yourself".

 

I'm not doubting your sources, KJP. I'm just not seeing this play out the way those charlatans want.

27 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

They've backed off from the idea:

https://www.si.com/nfl/browns/news/browns-wont-leave-cleveland-amidst-stadium-work

So that potentially clears that up, so this either confirms they’ll build elsewhere and still play at the current stadium until it’s done or what are the other options in NE Ohio if we’re able to believe this article, progressive field as mentioned before?

 

I guess also a hint with them stating that their fans  wouldn’t have to travel out of NE Ohio but not saying Cleveland itself 

 

also well done Ken you got a reaction out of them  

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by BoomerangCleRes

Just now, BoomerangCleRes said:

So that potentially clears that up, so this either confirms they’ll build elsewhere and still play at the current stadium until it’s done or what are the other options in NE Ohio if we’re able to believe this article, progressive field as mentioned before?

 

Also add that they could possible play in the stadium during renovations. 

20 minutes ago, TBideon said:

If Cleveland is spending billions on another mostly empty, refurbished, god-awfully located stadium (which I doubt) and Columbus gets 2 or 3 years of Browns football (which I also doubt), all in exchange for some vague lakefront development promises (which I doubt), then I would hope city leaders would write a response to Jimmy and Dee that begins with "Go" and ends with F-K Yourself".

 

I'm not doubting your sources, KJP. I'm just not seeing this play out the way those charlatans want.

To be fair to Ken, as I read his article, he never actually said he had a "source" that confirmed the Browns would play in Columbus.  He stated his source said it would be a total rebuild down to the foundation (which would need additional support).  Given those parameters, it only makes sense that the Browns could not play on the lakefront for a couple of years.  I think Ken was suggesting, given these realties, that Columbus would make the most sense for relocated seasons given the Haslam's ties to Columbus and the size of Ohio Stadium compared to other northeast Ohio venues.  Again, he never actually said it was a done deal or that a source even told him that.

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by Htsguy

8 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

To be fair to Ken, as I read his article, he never actually said he had a "source" that confirmed the Browns would play in Columbus.  He stated his source said it would be a total rebuild down to the foundation (which would need additional support).  Given those parameters, it only makes sense that the Browns could not play on the lakefront for a couple of years.  I think Ken was suggesting, given these realties, that Columbus would make the most sense for relocated seasons given the Haslam's ties to Columbus and the size of Ohio Stadium compared to other northeast Ohio venues.  Again, he never actually said it was a done deal or that a source even told him that.

 

I suspect he blew their cover and they are backing off from the backlash.

10 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I suspect he blew their cover and they are backing off from the backlash.

 

To that end I think there's a benefit to staying mum on speculation until there's something legitimate to talk about. Personally, I would have supported the idea of their move to Columbus for a few years in exchange for a meaningful, real, and transformative lakefront development proposal. On that basis, there can be downsides to speculating publicly on this stuff too early because whatever momentum or leverage that could have been building towards it is surely gone now.

 

Edited April 19, 20232 yr by ASP1984

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The other benefit to Columbus is that it plants the flag and further reinforces Columbus as a Browns town as it has been strongly trending toward the Bengals in recent years. 

 

Yeah.  It would be a little like when the Oilers played in Memphis for two years before moving to Nashville, in the hopes of building a statewide following for the Titans.  

It would be kind of wild if the NFL agreed to letting The Bengals play The Browns once per year at Ohio Stadium.  

Not sure if this has been discussed above but why would renovating Paycor be sufficient for the Bengals but the Browns would need a new stadium altogether. They are the same age. You would think they essentially used the same construction materials. Is it just team preference as to whether to renovate vs replace or is Paycor Stadium just built a lot better than Browns stadium was?

 

I was just in Cincinnati this weekend…Paycor is a dump too…make no mistake. 

Amazing how much attention a Browns news story gets. My blog got 48,000 views in the last two days, nearly all of them viewing the Browns article. Now I know why 92 The Fan talks Browns incessantly. 

For reference - Progressive Field is technically a possibility. That would be a really long season or two, but beats driving to Columbus. 

 

16 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

For reference - Progressive Field is technically a possibility. That would be a really long season or two, but beats driving to Columbus. 

 

Life comes full circle.

10 hours ago, KJP said:

Amazing how much attention a Browns news story gets. My blog got 48,000 views in the last two days, nearly all of them viewing the Browns article. Now I know why 92 The Fan talks Browns incessantly. 

Definitely one of the most fiercely loyal fan bases in the country.  It's astounding after the last 25 years of mediocrity actually. 

21 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Definitely one of the most fiercely loyal fan bases in the country.  It's astounding after the last 25 years of mediocrity actually. 

 

Haha you are being much too kind with saying "mediocrity."

 

Between April 19, 1993 and April 19, 2023, the Cleveland Browns have the worst record by a team, with a record of 150-283-1.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/worst-teams-in-the-last-30-years-in-nfl

On 4/17/2023 at 6:18 PM, snakebite said:

It at least ensures the team would stay Downtown. This is a penthouse suite compared to the motel Buffalo Bills plan of a downsized stadium surrounded by parking in the suburbs. 

 

Annoying Bills fan here - the suburban site of the Bills Stadium isn't the best siting, but (probably similar to the Browns) they cited cost savings (in addition to Bills tailgate culture - come to a game, you'll understand it's not a 'motel' of a culture) in keeping it where it is. All of the core infrastructure is there (much like Browns Stadium today - think of how much electric and water needs to feed into the stadium), you don't need to eminent domain any housing in the downtown core (another proposed site), or upgrade highways (their Outer Harbor/Central Terminal sites), and the stadium is not in great shape and time was of the essence (seems true for the most part).

 

A lot could be improved with the Bills plan (yo, extend the train out there!) but at the same time (to beat a dead horse) a downtown stadium isn't all it's cracked out to be, domed or otherwise. Hopefully the Haslam's (and others) can activate the lakefront around the stadium but man is it quiet down there 355 days out of the year. Who knows maybe we'll get a Pilot/Flying J themed hotel down there.

 

To Add: It seems like the Browns wouldn't (won't?) have issues with their other proposed sites re: eminent domain, or maybe even utilities/infrastructure but still, as Ken has stated - easiest and cheapest at the current site

Edited April 19, 20232 yr by GISguy

On 4/18/2023 at 9:34 AM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Assuming they play somewhere else, I assume that would be in Columbus? I know it has not been mentioned but where else could it be? The MAC schools in NE Ohio have stadiums that are too small and not enough amenities to support a temporary home for the NFL 

T-Town does not seem like it would be appropriate either. 

Columbus would have the amenities and the stadium size to work. The other benefit to Columbus is that it plants the flag and further reinforces Columbus as a Browns town as it has been strongly trending toward the Bengals in recent years. 

 

you mean like toledo trends when the detroit teams have success? or far eastern ohio does when pitts has (all their many) successes?  😅

never imagined 'just' a new open air stadium plan, much less on the same site, but the deck, neighborhood (and do i see train station?) would make up for it just fine. 

 

re playing in columbus thats an obvious one. there is really no other place to do it, is there? ie., toledo glass bowl: a record 36,582 at a 2001 game against Navy; akron rubber bowl: capacity is 30k; ksu: capacity of 25,319 and ysu stambaugh: is 20,630.

 

 

whoops, how could i forget bgsu lol? doyt perry: 24,000.

Rubber Bowl is gone.  It was replaced by Circumcision InfoCision Stadium.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Rubber Bowl is gone.  It was replaced by Circumcision InfoCision Stadium.

 

same.

 

InfoCision Stadium holds 27,000 spectators in traditional seating with an additional 3,000 the grassy knoll on the south end of the stadium.

14 hours ago, KJP said:

Amazing how much attention a Browns news story gets. My blog got 48,000 views in the last two days, nearly all of them viewing the Browns article. Now I know why 92 The Fan talks Browns incessantly. 

You are probably aware already, but your blogpost was picked up and linked by some guy at SI.com or one of the other fanatic sites.

 

your post popped up in my feed when I was surfing msn the other day and clicked on a link about the Browns stadium.

Not my best work, but America loves mediocrity, so...

11 minutes ago, KJP said:

Not my best work, but America loves mediocrity, so...

GO BROWNS! 

 
Annoying Bills fan here - the suburban site of the Bills Stadium isn't the best siting, but (probably similar to the Browns) they cited cost savings (in addition to Bills tailgate culture - come to a game, you'll understand it's not a 'motel' of a culture) in keeping it where it is. All of the core infrastructure is there (much like Browns Stadium today - think of how much electric and water needs to feed into the stadium), you don't need to eminent domain any housing in the downtown core (another proposed site), or upgrade highways (their Outer Harbor/Central Terminal sites), and the stadium is not in great shape and time was of the essence (seems true for the most part).
 
A lot could be improved with the Bills plan (yo, extend the train out there!) but at the same time (to beat a dead horse) a downtown stadium isn't all it's cracked out to be, domed or otherwise. Hopefully the Haslam's (and others) can activate the lakefront around the stadium but man is it quiet down there 355 days out of the year. Who knows maybe we'll get a Pilot/Flying J themed hotel down there.
 
To Add: It seems like the Browns wouldn't (won't?) have issues with their other proposed sites re: eminent domain, or maybe even utilities/infrastructure but still, as Ken has stated - easiest and cheapest at the current site

"Easiest and cheapest" is literally the reason Browns Stadium is in the condition it is now. I preferred building new at the 17th Street site to reactivate an area that needs it.

If you're going to redo a stadium do it right. It's not like the Browns Stadium is at risk of collapsing at any moment.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I've been thinking, there's probably lots of ways the city could pay for, or partially pay for, the stadium and not have it be charity. Here's a summary of the current lease. 

 

https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/ls-nfl-cleveland.pdf

 

And here's an article about it, which also references other city revenues such as parking. All in all, I'm not sure how long the city's payback period would be (I didn't bother doing the math), but it looks like long after the stadium is crumbling. (If anyone else has or wants to do the math, I'd be interested to see it). 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2013/11/firstenergy_stadium_lease_diss.html

 

For instance, why shouldn't the city retain naming rights to stadium? If they are paying for all or most of it, shouldn't they get to name it, and more importantly sell the rights to name it? The First Energy deal was worth quite a lot of money, over 100 million by the end of it. That's a sizeable chunk of what renovations will cost. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2013/01/cleveland_browns_stadium_deal.html

 

Perhaps they could also retain advertising revenue from outfield billboards, and many other things. 

 

Alternatively, the city could charge rent at a rate where there would be some reasonable payoff period relative to what the costs the city actually incurs from the renovations / build. (Say 20 years, even if it's 30 that'd be something) Maybe the Browns absolutely can't afford that, but that seems to beg the question to some extent. 

 

I guess summarizing this whole post into one question, is there any reasonable way the city could help the Browns build/renovate a stadium that wouldn't just be charity?  

2 hours ago, Ethan said:

I guess summarizing this whole post into one question, is there any reasonable way the city could help the Browns build/renovate a stadium that wouldn't just be charity?  

 

I suspect Bibb's proposed "lakefront development authority" will be a convenient baffle between stadium support and the city's general fund.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/mayor-says-no-general-fund-dollars-for-cleveland-browns-stadium-maintenance

Did we end up getting the official announcement from Bibb/Haslams this week? 

I'm not going to argue for or against a new, publicly subsidized stadium, but I've always been curious about the economic returns to a City or region.  So I googled, "What is the economic benefit of an NFL team to a city?" and read about a dozen studies, and browsed about another dozen headlines.  I focused mostly on studies by economists and college academics.  Of course, the results are murky, but I would say at least 75% of the studies concluded that there is little economic benefit to a city that subsidizes an NFL stadium.  The articles that seemed to argue for the benefits of an NFL team tended to rely on the "intangibles" to a City. 

Notably, one article referenced a comment from the Browns in 2015,

 

"Former Browns president Carmen Policy compares the Browns to the Cleveland Orchestra. The latter group brings little economic benefit to the city – only a tiny slice of the population attends classical music concerts – but as one of the United States’ “Big Five” orchestras, it adds a great deal of prestige to the city."

 

Feel free to do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

 

I agree these football stadiums (unlike the basketball/hockey arenas) don't make a lot of financial sense. But then, money isn't everything is it?

30 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I agree these football stadiums (unlike the basketball/hockey arenas) don't make a lot of financial sense. But then, money isn't everything is it?

 

Ha! Tell that to the NFL ;-) 

39 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I agree these football stadiums (unlike the basketball/hockey arenas) don't make a lot of financial sense. But then, money isn't everything is it?

If that's the case, then Jimmy and Dee can finance a stadium themselves, or the NFL can grant the city/county equity.

3 hours ago, Henke said:

Did we end up getting the official announcement from Bibb/Haslams this week? 

 

The first announcement was to be in regards to the land bridge, the legislation for which was to be submitted to City Council this week. I haven't seen that yet. Did I miss it?

So here's a thought...

 

Let's say a new stadium costs $1.5B and will be financed over 30 years.  I'm not counting interest or anything like that.  At 17 games per year (not counting playoffs), that's 510 games over the life of the stadium.  That means the stadium costs about $3M per game.

 

I would love an arrangement where the Browns and the City funded the stadium jointly.  If the Browns win...BOOM...the City makes a $3M payment.  If the Browns lose...Sorry Jimmy...that $3M is coming out of your end.  If the net benefit of an NFL team to a City is mostly pride, let's hold them accountable to that. 

 

I genuinely have mixed feelings about publicly funded stadiums, but I know I'd vote for a deal like this.  I would even be in favor of other incentives for winning seasons, playoffs, etc.  Win a Superbowl?  Next season's on us!  Beat the Steelers?  That counts as 2 wins!

17 games include home and away.

1 hour ago, urb-a-saurus said:

17 games include home and away.

 

And let's not forget that the NFL wants to take some home games away from the fans paying for the stadium in order to have teams play in London, and probably eventually other places.

Cleveland found to be 9th in America’s Most Valuable Sporting Cities

“The Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA and the Cleveland Browns in the NFL are both 4th in their respective conferences and draw in huge crowds for their games. They also made the city of Cleveland in the state of Ohio around $988,000,000 in 2022 and are forecasted to see this grow by 44% to $1,423,000,000 by 2030.”

https://www.olbg.com/us/blogs/most-valuable-sporting-cities

19 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Cleveland found to be 9th in America’s Most Valuable Sporting Cities

“The Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA and the Cleveland Browns in the NFL are both 4th in their respective conferences and draw in huge crowds for their games. They also made the city of Cleveland in the state of Ohio around $988,000,000 in 2022 and are forecasted to see this grow by 44% to $1,423,000,000 by 2030.”

https://www.olbg.com/us/blogs/most-valuable-sporting-cities

If true, this would justify a 2 billion investment into a domed stadium.

Disclaimer: posting this does not mean I agree with this opinion piece in totality, but I think it makes some good points, and I think will lead to some interesting discussion here. 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/opinion/stadium-deals-gift-riches-owners-such-browns-haslams

 

In particular, I don't see the land bridge and the stadium as the same thing. The public / private benefit from the two things seems very different to me. 

Here's something that struck me as I read the article above.  Between the lakefront and the riverfront, the City/County/State will be asked to raise and contribute tens to hundreds of millions on infrastructure to make these developments feasible.  Meanwhile, there is so much flat, empty, readily developable land in the City core (downtown, east and west flats, near east side, midtown), which is used for parking, minimal industry, or nothing at all.  I wish they could create some kind of "underused land" tax in the center City that would encourage landowners to make the most of their property, or sell it to someone who will.  I would call it a "Use it or Lose It" Tax!  Or at the very least, tax parking to the point that it makes surface lots less viable.

It now seems to have been settled that the Haslams are just going to renovate rather than rebuild.  How long will those renovations last -- another 30 years?

 

Where does the city want the stadium to be in 30 years?  Now would be a good time to start acquiring land and doing the urban planning for that neighborhood if we want the stadium off the lake.  How about an Opportunity Stadium Neighborhood that rivals Wrigleyville...

24 minutes ago, Dino said:

Here's something that struck me as I read the article above.  Between the lakefront and the riverfront, the City/County/State will be asked to raise and contribute tens to hundreds of millions on infrastructure to make these developments feasible.  Meanwhile, there is so much flat, empty, readily developable land in the City core (downtown, east and west flats, near east side, midtown), which is used for parking, minimal industry, or nothing at all.  I wish they could create some kind of "underused land" tax in the center City that would encourage landowners to make the most of their property, or sell it to someone who will.  I would call it a "Use it or Lose It" Tax!  Or at the very least, tax parking to the point that it makes surface lots less viable.

 

Under state law (in another erosion of home-rule), a municipality is not allowed to charge more than an 8 percent tax tax on parking receipts. See:

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-715.09

 

However, it may be possible that the proposed North Coast Development Corp. is to be authorized by the city and county to levy its own parking assessments, which may explain why the large area was identified as part of its proposed jurisdiction (see the lakefront thread for my post today, showing that jurisdiction map).