https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/10/1...dium-move/

In addition to hosting NFL games, I could see this new stadium hosting some regular season college football games, Big Ten football championship games, NCAA basketball final fours, and CFP playoff games.

Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

But if you're Jerry Jones and your game was marred by bad weather and lawsuits, you get to host the Super Bowl once, but never again.

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

That seems to be true for new NFL indoor stadiums. Howwver, new NFL outdoor stadiums in Northern cities usually don't get a superbowl. The new outdoor stadium in the Meadowlands was an exception because it was in the New York City area. But I am pretty sure Buffalo won't get get a Superbowl when the Bills build their new outdoor stadium. Which still makes me wonder why Buffalo did not build an indoor stadium.

But yes, I am pretty sure when the Titans, Bears and Browns build their new indoor stadiums, they will get at least 1 Super Bowl.

Far from done. They want $1.2 billion in public money (on a $2.4 billion project) and are turning down $461 million from Cleveland to renovate the current one and develop the surrounding area (a $1.2 billion project). Brook Park doesn’t have money for this and Cuyahoga County strongly endorsed Cleveland’s plan and has little incentive to get involved. The state is likely out or else they’ll be tapped for money every time a Cincinnati/Columbus team wants cash too. And Ohio passed a law after Modell moved in the 90s saying if a team wants to leave a city, the city has the right to buy the team first, so there’s not much leverage to threaten to move if Brook Park/Cuyahoga/Ohio don’t play ball beyond holding their breath until they pass out.

(10-17-2024 07:45 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

But if you're Jerry Jones and your game was marred by bad weather and lawsuits, you get to host the Super Bowl once, but never again.

That’s also because for several years since then the NFL has required a team to agree to move a home game overseas to host a Super Bowl. Jerry wasn’t willing when he had 8 regular season home games and likely isn’t doing it in years he has 9.

(10-17-2024 07:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

That seems to be true for new NFL indoor stadiums. Howwver, new NFL outdoor stadiums in Northern cities usually don't get a superbowl. The new outdoor stadium in the Meadowlands was an exception because it was in the New York City area. But I am pretty sure Buffalo won't get get a Superbowl when the Bills build their new outdoor stadium. Which still makes me wonder why Buffalo did not build an indoor stadium.

But yes, I am pretty sure when the Titans, Bears and Browns build their new indoor stadiums, they will get at least 1 Super Bowl.

Regardless of BS bought and paid for by the NFL studies, Super Bowls do basically nothing for a local economy. Tourists flood in, locals avoid everything for a week, and even if the tourist money is greater than what the locals would have spent, that’s before the NFL requires free hotel rooms, tax abatements, etc. So a dome would get one Super Bowl, and…? Not much else. As for big concerts and events, you can easily host Taylor Swift/WWE/whatever else in the summer. Are those levels of acts playing a football stadium in Buffalo in December regardless of if the show itself is inside if they have to go through a blizzard to get there?

(10-17-2024 08:03 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

That seems to be true for new NFL indoor stadiums. Howwver, new NFL outdoor stadiums in Northern cities usually don't get a superbowl. The new outdoor stadium in the Meadowlands was an exception because it was in the New York City area. But I am pretty sure Buffalo won't get get a Superbowl when the Bills build their new outdoor stadium. Which still makes me wonder why Buffalo did not build an indoor stadium.

But yes, I am pretty sure when the Titans, Bears and Browns build their new indoor stadiums, they will get at least 1 Super Bowl.

Regardless of BS bought and paid for by the NFL studies, Super Bowls do basically nothing for a local economy. Tourists flood in, locals avoid everything for a week, and even if the tourist money is greater than what the locals would have spent, that’s before the NFL requires free hotel rooms, tax abatements, etc. So a dome would get one Super Bowl, and…? Not much else.

If nothing else, the Super Bowl is like a giant infomercial for the city. And it can be a source of pride for a city.

(10-17-2024 07:45 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

But if you're Jerry Jones and your game was marred by bad weather and lawsuits, you get to host the Super Bowl once, but never again.

At least he made it into the Hall of Fame, unlike that weasel Robert Kraft who keeps politicking for it and failing.

(10-17-2024 08:03 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

That seems to be true for new NFL indoor stadiums. Howwver, new NFL outdoor stadiums in Northern cities usually don't get a superbowl. The new outdoor stadium in the Meadowlands was an exception because it was in the New York City area. But I am pretty sure Buffalo won't get get a Superbowl when the Bills build their new outdoor stadium. Which still makes me wonder why Buffalo did not build an indoor stadium.

But yes, I am pretty sure when the Titans, Bears and Browns build their new indoor stadiums, they will get at least 1 Super Bowl.

Regardless of BS bought and paid for by the NFL studies, Super Bowls do basically nothing for a local economy. Tourists flood in, locals avoid everything for a week, and even if the tourist money is greater than what the locals would have spent, that’s before the NFL requires free hotel rooms, tax abatements, etc. So a dome would get one Super Bowl, and…? Not much else. As for big concerts and events, you can easily host Taylor Swift/WWE/whatever else in the summer. Are those levels of acts playing a football stadium in Buffalo in December regardless of if the show itself is inside if they have to go through a blizzard to get there?

I'll cut you some slack since your state doesn't have an NFL team, but the Super Bowl is actually played in February, not December.

As for the value to the local economy of hosting a Super Bowl...Who really knows these things? NYC probably won't notice much of a difference. For Buffalo it would be the biggest thing to happen to the city in a decade and a great opportunity to show off the city to a huge audience that probably has no idea about what the city's like. Dallas and Atlanta are somewhere in between.

I would question whether Buffalo has enough hotel rooms, as Erie County, NY only has around 10,000 rooms. Jacksonville had issues with this when they hosted.

Could Cleveland State start a football team? They could pitch it for Cleveland State to share as well. Imagining Cleveland State to host Ohio State there?

Would be one of the worst Ohio investments of all time. Let alone an AFC North team playing indoors 8-9x a year.

Disgrace.

Of course, it’s more about tOSU playoff games than the future well being of the Browns

(10-17-2024 07:53 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  Far from done. They want $1.2 billion in public money (on a $2.4 billion project) and are turning down $461 million from Cleveland to renovate the current one and develop the surrounding area (a $1.2 billion project). Brook Park doesn’t have money for this and Cuyahoga County strongly endorsed Cleveland’s plan and has little incentive to get involved. The state is likely out or else they’ll be tapped for money every time a Cincinnati/Columbus team wants cash too.

I agree. I'd be surprised if the county budges on this. Browns fans are reminded every week of how the Haslam family lit $230 million on fire through bad hiring practices. And it does not help that close to one-third of county residents live in Cleveland proper.

I don't see a groundswell of citizens demanding the county pony up hundreds of millions of dollars to help a feckless billionaire move his business to a suburb.

(10-17-2024 08:28 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 08:03 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:51 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

That seems to be true for new NFL indoor stadiums. Howwver, new NFL outdoor stadiums in Northern cities usually don't get a superbowl. The new outdoor stadium in the Meadowlands was an exception because it was in the New York City area. But I am pretty sure Buffalo won't get get a Superbowl when the Bills build their new outdoor stadium. Which still makes me wonder why Buffalo did not build an indoor stadium.

But yes, I am pretty sure when the Titans, Bears and Browns build their new indoor stadiums, they will get at least 1 Super Bowl.

Regardless of BS bought and paid for by the NFL studies, Super Bowls do basically nothing for a local economy. Tourists flood in, locals avoid everything for a week, and even if the tourist money is greater than what the locals would have spent, that’s before the NFL requires free hotel rooms, tax abatements, etc. So a dome would get one Super Bowl, and…? Not much else. As for big concerts and events, you can easily host Taylor Swift/WWE/whatever else in the summer. Are those levels of acts playing a football stadium in Buffalo in December regardless of if the show itself is inside if they have to go through a blizzard to get there?

I'll cut you some slack since your state doesn't have an NFL team, but the Super Bowl is actually played in February, not December.

As for the value to the local economy of hosting a Super Bowl...Who really knows these things? NYC probably won't notice much of a difference. For Buffalo it would be the biggest thing to happen to the city in a decade and a great opportunity to show off the city to a huge audience that probably has no idea about what the city's like. Dallas and Atlanta are somewhere in between.

This isn’t a guess or a feeling, these are facts. The only studies that tout unreal economic impact are paid for by the leagues and the local governments justifying these boondoggles. There are plenty of real studies into these things. Look up Neil deMause or JC Bradbury to get started.

There’s certainly *some* value in having pro sports and hosting a Super Bowl. Problem is, that discussion is never held, it’s these BS studies. And again, all things aren’t equal. If Taylor Swift plays 3 straight nights, that’s a ton of sales tax generated even if the locals avoid the entertainment district. Taylor Swift doesn’t get a deal from the government to come to town. Every single hotel room the NFL has is going to be free which means paid for by taxpayers. For starters, hotel taxes will be either waived or nominally paid by the government taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Oh, and they have a zone around the stadium where the city is supposed to prohibit competing signage if it’s not an NFL sponsor, so if a building owner wants to capitalize by hanging a Coors or coke sign up that week, the city is obligated to go after them if the NFL sponsors are Budweiser or Pepsi (this may have been successfully challenged in court recently, not sure).

And while I’m a Bama grad/ticket holder I live in a state that’s hosted multiple Super Bowls/Final Fours/everything else. December referred to whether concerts are happening there regardless that month. I literally said that lol. Pay attention

(10-17-2024 08:33 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I would question whether Buffalo has enough hotel rooms, as Erie County, NY only has around 10,000 rooms. Jacksonville had issues with this when they hosted.

Exactly, even with a few new downtown hotels opening in the last decade and counting Niagara Falls hotels on both sides of the border, not enough rooms. Fans would have to stay an hour away in Rochester, in winter. Detroit and Cleveland have the rooms.

(10-17-2024 09:08 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 08:33 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I would question whether Buffalo has enough hotel rooms, as Erie County, NY only has around 10,000 rooms. Jacksonville had issues with this when they hosted.

Exactly, even with a few new downtown hotels opening in the last decade and counting Niagara Falls hotels on both sides of the border, not enough rooms. Fans would have to stay an hour away in Rochester, in winter. Detroit and Cleveland have the rooms.

Very good point. Arlington didn’t have nearly enough rooms and had to partner with Dallas and Fort Worth to qualify. If the Buffalo metro doesn’t have enough it’s a nonstarter.

(10-17-2024 07:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Apparently I’m officially an old guy, seems like they just built their current home stadium not long ago. Now, to me, not long ago was probably 20 years ago.

Obviously once completed, they will host a Super Bowl that season. I think that’s a standing agreement with the NFL, build a new stadium, you get to host the Super Bowl.

Stadium opened when the franchise was revived in 1999.

(10-17-2024 07:53 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  Far from done. They want $1.2 billion in public money (on a $2.4 billion project) and are turning down $461 million from Cleveland to renovate the current one and develop the surrounding area (a $1.2 billion project). Brook Park doesn’t have money for this and Cuyahoga County strongly endorsed Cleveland’s plan and has little incentive to get involved. The state is likely out or else they’ll be tapped for money every time a Cincinnati/Columbus team wants cash too. And Ohio passed a law after Modell moved in the 90s saying if a team wants to leave a city, the city has the right to buy the team first, so there’s not much leverage to threaten to move if Brook Park/Cuyahoga/Ohio don’t play ball beyond holding their breath until they pass out.

It will be interesting to see whether any of these places cave on the public money piece. The Bears and White Sox are going through the same thing in pushback against their public money requests from the State of Illinois.

That being said, my understanding of the Ohio “Art Modell” law that you’re referencing is that it would be totally ineffective in this situation. All it does is require a 6 month notice to give a chance for “area residents” to buy the team, but the team owner isn’t required to accept any of those offers. It may not even apply at all because the “area residents” language could be interpreted to mean that legislative intent of the law is to prevent a team from moving out of the area entirely as opposed to the specific city proper, so the Browns moving to a Cleveland suburb that’s adjacent to the city doesn’t come under it. In any event, whether the law applies or not, a 6 month delay isn’t stopping a stadium project getting done if that’s what the owner wants and the funding is there.

I keep thinking, at some point cities, and tax payers, will stop allowing sports team owners from holding them hostage for billion dollar stadiums. Yet, here we are again. Cleveland has lost the Browns once already, can’t imagine it happening again.

Which brings me to another question, should team names and history belong to the city or the owner? These leagues could make a huge PR move by declaring that it belongs to the city, and the essentially the fans of those teams.