1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

What other benefits does the county get?

Typically, when considering economic development initiatives, it all comes down to tax revenue.  The City/County are likely considering payroll taxes, hotel taxes, sales taxes, etc.  There have been many studies that examine the cost/benefit of subsidies to professional sports teams.  The conclusions are often murky because they rely on assumptions about the indirect impact of a sports team.  Example: is the bar crowd downtown on a Sunday directly related to the Browns, or would just as many people still be going out and watching other teams, or spending money on something else?  It's kind of a guessing game.

Typically, when considering economic development initiatives, it all comes down to tax revenue.  The City/County are likely considering payroll taxes, hotel taxes, sales taxes, etc.  There have been many studies that examine the cost/benefit of subsidies to professional sports teams.  The conclusions are often murky because they rely on assumptions about the indirect impact of a sports team.  Example: is the bar crowd downtown on a Sunday directly related to the Browns, or would just as many people still be going out and watching other teams, or spending money on something else?  It's kind of a guessing game.

I’ve recently departed from that “it’s murky” conclusion, when you go out on a game day for browns or cavs just about every restaurant within walking distance of the stadiums for 3 hours before the game have hours waits and bars are packed, go during the same time when it’s not a game day it’s simply not as busy and waits are more digestible.

On 4/28/2023 at 12:45 PM, Dino said:

"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."

This is a quote I included in an earlier post about subsidized stadiums.  I find it interesting that this is the view of someone from within the Browns organization.  I'm not saying this does or doesn't make subsidized stadiums worthwhile, but I do think this quote cuts to the core of the issue.  This is about more than just a return on investment.

3 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

go during the same time when it’s not a game day it’s simply not as busy and waits are more digestible

This is true.  The studies I've read that argue FOR subsidies, conclude that this is a direct benefit from having a sports teams.  The studies I've read that argue AGAINST subsidies conclude that this is just a redirection of money people would have spent on entertainment no matter what, and not an increase.  The fact that there are many academic studies that are drawing opposite conclusions is what I characterize the issue as "murky".  

This is true.  The studies I've read that argue FOR subsidies, conclude that this is a direct benefit from having a sports teams.  The studies I've read that argue AGAINST subsidies conclude that this is just a redirection of money people would have spent on entertainment no matter what, and not an increase.  The fact that there are many academic studies that are drawing opposite conclusions is what I characterize the issue as "murky".  

Agreed but I think for Cleveland the people coming to the games may have spent money somewhere during the day but more likely would have spent it in their suburb, the teams pull large populations downtown to spend money

With all of the questions as to whether or not stadium subsidies work as intended, I think it's unfortunate that people tend not to think of whether it's appropriate to take money from taxpayers who may be struggling to make ends meet and funnel it to sports teams so that bars and restaurants nearby perform better than they otherwise would. 

 

This is coming from a huge sports fan who loves downtown and directly benefits from those bars and restaurants doing well.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Milkshake1 said:

With all of the questions as to whether or not stadium subsidies work as intended, I think it's unfortunate that people tend not to think of whether it's appropriate to take money from taxpayers who may be struggling to make ends meet and funnel it to sports teams so that bars and restaurants nearby perform better than they otherwise would. 

 

This is coming from a huge sports fan who loves downtown and directly benefits from those bars and restaurants doing well.

 

The NFL's media rights alone are earning something like $100 billion USD.  It's hard to argue they need to be subsidized for anything. 

41 minutes ago, Milkshake1 said:

With all of the questions as to whether or not stadium subsidies work as intended, I think it's unfortunate that people tend not to think of whether it's appropriate to take money from taxpayers who may be struggling to make ends meet and funnel it to sports teams so that bars and restaurants nearby perform better than they otherwise would. 

 

I know some people like to throw around the phrase “trickle-down” a little too much, but is that not exactly what stadium subsidies are? Give big handouts to wealthy stadium owners so that they (hopefully? maybe?) end up paying more in taxes to benefit everyone?

 

Is there some other way private football stadiums benefit the public as a whole, aside from supposed city “prestige”?

To me, the prestige means nothing. The simple question is, in a city like Cleveland (or Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, really almost anywhere) do you want an NFL team to root for locally or not? If that’s not important to the city/county voters, they’ll vote down tax increases and the team leaves. If it is important to voters, they’ll support tax increases and pay for a stadium. Obviously the math is different for cities like NYC and for some reason Dallas, but even LA has lost NFL teams because it didn’t support new stadiums in the past. Put up or shut up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nfl/article-12164763/Bills-break-ground-1-5b-stadium-ahead-2026-unveiling-securing-850m-taxes.html

 

Bills break ground on $1.5bn stadium set for 2026 as owner Terry Pegula and New York governor Kathy Hochul celebrate team's 30-year lease after securing $850m in taxes

 

That sure is a lot of money, plus interest, so that people spend money at Orchard Park restaurants and hotels rather than elsewhere. 

 

It's like the ghost of Browns Christmas future, with the photos, dignitaries, speeches, fanfare, and other participants in the scam. Only thing missing is a statue of a serial woman beater and photo of a serial sex abuser.

3 hours ago, TBideon said:

That sure is a lot of money, plus interest, so that people spend money at Orchard Park restaurants and hotels rather than elsewhere. 

The Bills are THE ONLY team that plays in New York.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nfl/article-12164763/Bills-break-ground-1-5b-stadium-ahead-2026-unveiling-securing-850m-taxes.html
 
Bills break ground on $1.5bn stadium set for 2026 as owner Terry Pegula and New York governor Kathy Hochul celebrate team's 30-year lease after securing $850m in taxes
 
That sure is a lot of money, plus interest, so that people spend money at Orchard Park restaurants and hotels rather than elsewhere. 
 
It's like the ghost of Browns Christmas future, with the photos, dignitaries, speeches, fanfare, and other participants in the scam. Only thing missing is a statue of a serial woman beater and photo of a serial sex abuser.

I find it INSANE that the Vikings beautiful dome stadium cost "only" 1.1 Billion in 2016 and now 1.5 billion only gets you an open air, relatively plain stadium.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

7 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I find it INSANE that the Vikings beautiful dome stadium cost "only" 1.1 Billion in 2016 and now 1.5 billion only gets you an open air, relatively plain stadium.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

The Vikings also paid off the debt on their stadium 23 years early

I can almost feel the Haslams squirming with stadium envy.

 

 

Nothing is forcing them not to

I have no particular spot in mind, but what if a city could give a team a big chunk of land and say "develop it and we'll give you a percentage of the taxes and speed you through the approval process."  In lieu of giving them cash subsidies. 

 

The team would have an incentive to build a high-density, year-round entertainment kind of place that would generate a lot of taxes to pay for the stadium.  And if it was on a brownfield, the city also gets someone to do a bit of cleanup or revitalization of a corner of the city that might otherwise have been difficult to develop.  Now, this is a really uninformed idea -- I'm no real estate expert and I have no idea whether this could come even close to generating enough revenue for a stadium or how much acreage would be required for it to be feasible, but it does seem like the city might have enough vacant brownfields that are too large an undertaking for the average developer -- in other words, the city has land, it doesn't have cash, so how can that land be leveraged?

32 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I have no particular spot in mind, but what if a city could give a team a big chunk of land and say "develop it and we'll give you a percentage of the taxes and speed you through the approval process."  In lieu of giving them cash subsidies. 

 

The team would have an incentive to build a high-density, year-round entertainment kind of place that would generate a lot of taxes to pay for the stadium.  And if it was on a brownfield, the city also gets someone to do a bit of cleanup or revitalization of a corner of the city that might otherwise have been difficult to develop.  Now, this is a really uninformed idea -- I'm no real estate expert and I have no idea whether this could come even close to generating enough revenue for a stadium or how much acreage would be required for it to be feasible, but it does seem like the city might have enough vacant brownfields that are too large an undertaking for the average developer -- in other words, the city has land, it doesn't have cash, so how can that land be leveraged?

That’s not much of an incentive when they can just count on the public gifting them a billion dollars. 

8 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

That’s not much of an incentive when they can just count on the public gifting them a billion dollars. 

Or not.  The public is getting tired of gifting billionaire owners.

FES signage is down.  Sayonara.

 Pedestrian bridges are still there.  When are they going to be removed?

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Nothing is forcing them not to

 

You don't understand the NFL (from players to owners) very well. Everything is about getting what the other guy gets.

For sure, the Haslams will be salivating after seeing that proposed palatial venue in Jacksonville. Wonder how much it is going to cost and who is paying. 
 

When the new or rebuilt Browns stadium is eventually built, I hope it’s a not another half-assed version that we have to redo in another 20 years.  But keeping up with the Jones’s in the NFL is getting incredibly expensive. 

IMHO, it's nearly a slam dunk they get taxpayer funding. And I say that as someone who isn't a big sports fan or ever gone to a Browns game. Our region loves sports and none as much as the Browns.

 

Like anyone, I'm skeptical of public funding. But a potential proof point for the ROI is the area around Nationals Park in D.C. 15 years ago there wasn't much to draw you to that part of the city but in the time since it has blown up with development. Apartments, condos, restaurants, offices. It completely changed the city. 

22 minutes ago, coneflower said:

IMHO, it's nearly a slam dunk they get taxpayer funding. And I say that as someone who isn't a big sports fan or ever gone to a Browns game. Our region loves sports and none as much as the Browns.

 

I'd love for it to be a referendum. I'd venture to say that a large majority of people who come to games do so from out of the county. I'd love to see the season ticket holder breakdown but I'm sure that's kept under lock and key.

2 hours ago, CleveFan said:

For sure, the Haslams will be salivating after seeing that proposed palatial venue in Jacksonville. Wonder how much it is going to cost and who is paying.

I took a quick Google and the proposal calls for Duval county to fund the stadium, and the owner to fund the surrounding ballpark village.    Maybe not a great deal, but at least the owner has some skin in the game.  

I think that Jags stadium is a good barometer of what to expect. 62k capacity expandable to 71k with field cover, plus some associated mixed use development in a non-major/tourist drawing NFL market. That doesn't sound too dissimilar to what the Haslams want and where we are in some senses.

 

The difference and the difficulty for the Haslams though if thats road we were to go down however is that Jacksonville is both absolutely desperate to give their Downtown a shot in the arm, nor do they want to lose their only pro team, so they probably have as weak a bargaining position as any market in the NFL or pro sports in general.

 

Edited June 8, 20232 yr by snakebite

 
I'd love for it to be a referendum. I'd venture to say that a large majority of people who come to games do so from out of the county. I'd love to see the season ticket holder breakdown but I'm sure that's kept under lock and key.

https://www.clevescene.com/news/only-30-of-fans-at-browns-home-games-live-in-cuayhoga-county-data-shows-42158860

“30.9 percent of attendees hailed from inside county lines. Moreover, only 15.5 percent of those fans live in Cleveland.”

“30-70 split is relatively common for U.S. regions with large populations in close-by counties.”

25 minutes ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

https://www.clevescene.com/news/only-30-of-fans-at-browns-home-games-live-in-cuayhoga-county-data-shows-42158860

“30.9 percent of attendees hailed from inside county lines. Moreover, only 15.5 percent of those fans live in Cleveland.”

“30-70 split is relatively common for U.S. regions with large populations in close-by counties.”

 

Yesssss, is MO on here? lol this is perfect. The 70% can pony up in my opinion.

It al boils down to economics.  There's no question that NFL teams generate millions in tax revenue and indirect economic activity.  And there's no question that an NFL team will take those millions to whichever City provides the largest incentives (whether it's now or in the future).  The $1 billion question is if Cleveland is getting a good deal, if it's worth keeping the Browns even if we think it isn't a good deal, and are we willing to call their bluff and hope they don't leave?

 

Here's an interesting article on the Cost vs. Revenue of Browns Stadium

 

https://signalcleveland.org/the-public-cost-of-cleveland-browns-stadium-hundreds-of-millions-and-counting/

 

 

Comments about the stadium start at 6:30, interesting phrasing of “developing, remodeling”

Incoming

Hopefully it’s a good bomb.

^^I  think I know what is it.  Browns finally agreeing to my idea and are putting a new stadium on an island near the water intake crib.  I mean consider the skyline views.

Stadium/jail/courts/condos combo incoming.

 

Oh, and outlets, those too.

Edited July 26, 20231 yr by GISguy

 

Browns Stadium talks tackled for no gain
By Ken Prendergast / July 26, 2023

 

At a press conference this week, Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam raised some eyebrows with their comments about the current stadium and where the football team might play in the future. Among other remarks, Jimmy Haslam interjected that “The only thing Dee and I would say for sure is we’re not leaving Northeast Ohio.” According to a team source familiar with its negotiations with the city of Cleveland, that remark was a subtle nudge to the city to resolve an apparent impasse in negotiations. The source added that, if the team doesn’t see more progress, it could leave Cleveland for a new stadium in the suburbs.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/07/26/browns-stadium-talks-tackled-for-no-gain/

I'm sorry but pound salt man. "Columbus worked with us". I didnt realize a new stadium is going to cost only $300 million. Are you going to ask Cleveland for more than $100 million? You better believe it! "We'll be in northeast Ohio" but all of the potential locations are still in Cuyahoga County? So everyone in Cuyahoga County will need to pay for it but it wouldn't be downtown? Chris should have that be a non-starter. If it's in Cuyahoga county it needs to be downtown. Full stop. Otherwise go to Medina County and have them pay for it. Absolutely ridiculous 🙄 

I may get a lot of hate for saying this, but I actually think the Brook Park location could be a really good spot for the stadium. Right off the highway. Pretty close to downtown. Seriously underutilized piece of land. Not way out in Richfield but also not on prime lakefront land. It could also be made easily accessible via public transit with a little Red Line extension. You could put a station adjoining the stadium. Also, right by the airport (the real one, not Burke).

 

Put another way—

 

If the stadium were there in Brook Park right now, and the Browns said they were considering putting it on the lakefront, would we be happy about it?

4 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I may get a lot of hate for saying this, but I actually think the Brook Park location could be a really good spot for the stadium. Right off the highway. Pretty close to downtown. Seriously underutilized piece of land. Not way out in Richfield but also not on prime lakefront land. It could also be made easily accessible via public transit with a little Red Line extension. You could put a station adjoining the stadium. Also, right by the airport (the real one, not Burke).

 

Put another way—

 

If the stadium were there in Brook Park right now, and the Browns said they were considering putting it on the lakefront, would we be happy about it?

Do they really think that Brook Park has more disposable money than Cleveland?

So if it goes to the suburbs then the Haslams are going to pay the whole 2 billion cost of the stadium themselves.  I mean Brookpark, Independence and Highland Hills are not going to be able to contribute anything and I can't see Cuyahoga County offering anything if it is not downtown.  So then, if the Haslams are going to have to pay the whole tab, why not just build it downtown.

Edited July 27, 20231 yr by Htsguy

3 minutes ago, MikeyB440 said:

Do they really think that Brook Park has more disposable money than Cleveland?

No, I bet they don’t. But I don’t think the issue with Cleveland is that the city literally doesn’t have enough money. I think they just don’t think a stadium is worth $1 bil to them. I have no idea whether Brook Park has enough $$ to make it work. I’m assuming any city would have to finance via bond issuance + tax increase. We’re talking about $50,000+ per Brook Park resident, which sounds pretty unrealistic to me. Maybe Brook Park is stupid enough to pass some 100 year levy to support a 100 year stadium bond that someone is dumb enough to buy. I’m sure Jimmy&Dee are happy to get this deal done even if it’s an outrageous long-term risk for the counterparty city.

What's interesting is that the city of Columbus didn't pay for Lower.com Field, but they did pay for the surrounding development which helped boost the private sector contribution for stadium.

Back and forth. Round and round. Pointing fingers. Subliminal media messages. Politics. Studies after studies.

I am so worn out over this god d*mn topic. Pick a f*cking spot (there will be naysayers with any location that is chosen), figure out financing and get it the hell done. Or just get the hell out of town and don't let the door hit ya.

Or, if they want to be in Cleveland, force the practice facility to move to the city limits and have all salaray city tax go to Cleveland, not Berea.

Highland option owned by the City. Independence is heavily reliant on its Rockside office corridor. And after reading about Progressive today, can’t imagine their fiscal future looks very bright. Brookpark? Not a chance. They’re leaving Cleveland or staying on the lakefront. I don’t see an in between. And you know Ronayne won’t go against Bibb over that trash organization.

I hope the county wouldn't subsidize a move away from cleveland and these suburban cities don't try to poach the team. 

 

I don't think the browns risk losing viewership/fan support if they leave the city, but they do if they left the county.

My first reaction was “OMG - the Browns NOT in the city of Cleveland?”  But there are plenty of examples of similar outrageness- like the NY Giants (and Jets) in New Jersey.  At the end of the day -  what is most important - is the money.  
 

I think this is strategic  gamesmanship on the Haslams part - but if the best deal for the Browns somehow  moves the stadium to a suburban location - I’m sure the Haslams would take the deal and shed no tears for the city of Cleveland. 
 

But maybe that wonderful development we’ve seen in those fancy renderings north of the land bridge, near the stadium. might be in some jeopardy without the Haslams help. 
 

Then again, a stadium in the burbs would officially open the downtown lakefront - and that might be a really fortunate unintended consequence for the city.  
 

If one follows the money - the most likely outcome is still a redo at the current location.  If they can retain any infrastructure from the current stadium - I’d imagine there’s hundreds of millions to be saved.  
 

My wish - a new stadium build on the north eastern end of downtown - that would transform that area  - and allow for an entire new downtown lakefront.  But sadly,  that simply sounds too expensive for Cleveland.

 

Moving a major attraction out of Downtown to a suburban site in an era where we are trying to get away from reliance on cars and show more consideration for the environment is not good at all IMO. And if it comes with one of these entertainment districts then further decentralizing and spreading out nightlife options is hardly a help either. We need a strong Downtown with a cluster of varying uses in close proximity. Not major attractions dotted here, there and everywhere and spreading the region thin. And they are still going to want a huge amount of tax payers money for a suburban site where there's much less spin off benefit for surrounding business.

2 hours ago, snakebite said:

Moving a major attraction out of Downtown to a suburban site in an era where we are trying to get away from reliance on cars and show more consideration for the environment is not good at all IMO. 

 

Don't assume that's a priority.  That's a big mistake a lot of urbanists make, assuming everyone is on board with their specific agenda.   

7 hours ago, Whipjacka said:

I hope the county wouldn't subsidize a move away from cleveland and these suburban cities don't try to poach the team. 

 

I don't think the browns risk losing viewership/fan support if they leave the city, but they do if they left the county.

 

I'm not so sure about that, especially if they moved to the northern Summit County "borderlands".  The Cavaliers didn't.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

I'm not so sure about that, especially if they moved to the northern Summit County "borderlands".  The Cavaliers didn't.

What if they move to that one Akron suburb, Walton Hills?