I don't know why Cleveland is so opposed to the Browns building and moving to a new multipurpose domed stadium in ........ wait for it ........ Cleveland.

(10-24-2024 05:43 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  I don't know why Cleveland is so opposed to the Browns building and moving to a new multipurpose domed stadium in ........ wait for it ........ Cleveland.

Brook Park isn’t Cleveland, who’s decided they want to pay $400 million to go toward a renovation and redevelopment surrounding the downtown stadium. The law has never been tested, so they’d be idiots not to use it as leverage if nothing else.

How is that renovation going to lure a Super Bowl or March Madness Final 4 to Cleveland?

They might get one Super Bowl that loses money according to every study or economist who isn’t being paid by the NFL or a local government justifying losing millions of dollars. I doubt Metro Cleveland gets more than one Final Four for that matter and maybe not even that.

And Cleveland clearly decided that the number it’s worth to keep the Browns downtown in about $460 million. We might all have different opinions of whether/how much local governments should pay toward these things but that’s the number Cleveland decided on. They have no incentive to let the Browns walk while they have leverage.

(10-25-2024 03:05 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  They might get one Super Bowl that loses money according to every study or economist who isn’t being paid by the NFL or a local government justifying losing millions of dollars. I doubt Metro Cleveland gets more than one Final Four for that matter and maybe not even that.

And Cleveland clearly decided that the number it’s worth to keep the Browns downtown in about $460 million. We might all have different opinions of whether/how much local governments should pay toward these things but that’s the number Cleveland decided on. They have no incentive to let the Browns walk while they have leverage.

There’s not really leverage for the city, though. As I noted before and the law professor noted in this latest article, the most that the City of Cleveland can really get even if this law actually applies (which is an open question since it refers to seeking other buyers in the “area”, which implies that the legislative intent of the law is about protecting against a team leaving a metro area altogether as opposed to a specific city) is a 6 month delay to the new stadium proceeding as Haslam has no obligation to actually agree to sell the team to someone else. Plus, even if someone could pony up the money to buy the team at a number that Haslam would accept, it would almost certainly require a brand new dome stadium somewhere because that’s what people that have the money to pay $5 billion-plus for an NFL team would rationally require.

Whether public financing should be involved in any stadium deal is a completely fair debate. However, putting aside of who should pay for a stadium, if I’m realistically putting myself in the shoes of an NFL owner and wanted to build a new stadium in a Northern climate, it would 100% need to be a dome that can host events all year. The Bills have an owner that seems to have a true emotional attachment to the Buffalo area, so they’ll have a new outdoor stadium, but he’s essentially choosing to leave money on the table there. Any other owner in the North in today’s world would realistically want an indoor venue. So, the City of Cleveland proposal isn’t going to work unless they figure out a brand new dome proposal. The City is trying to offer Haslam a ranch house when he’s specifically stating that he doesn’t want a ranch house.

(10-17-2024 08:03 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  Regardless of BS bought and paid for by the NFL studies, Super Bowls do basically nothing for a local economy.

tell that to a host's Chamber of Commerce

(10-25-2024 07:58 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(10-17-2024 08:03 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  Regardless of BS bought and paid for by the NFL studies, Super Bowls do basically nothing for a local economy.

tell that to a host's Chamber of Commerce

Yes, another unbiased resource.

For the record, and I said this a few pages back, if all things were equal I don't know that it's a money losing endeavor, although all of the economic impact studies touting hundreds of millions of dollars are absurd. But all things aren't equal. The NFL basically demands that any of the tangible benefits a host city should get are instead ceded to the NFL. Sales tax abatements, free hotel rooms that either mean foregoing hotel/motel tax or the city nominally paying the tax itself so it still shows up as a revenue but is a corresponding expenditure.

(10-25-2024 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-25-2024 03:05 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  They might get one Super Bowl that loses money according to every study or economist who isn’t being paid by the NFL or a local government justifying losing millions of dollars. I doubt Metro Cleveland gets more than one Final Four for that matter and maybe not even that.

And Cleveland clearly decided that the number it’s worth to keep the Browns downtown in about $460 million. We might all have different opinions of whether/how much local governments should pay toward these things but that’s the number Cleveland decided on. They have no incentive to let the Browns walk while they have leverage.

There’s not really leverage for the city, though. As I noted before and the law professor noted in this latest article, the most that the City of Cleveland can really get even if this law actually applies (which is an open question since it refers to seeking other buyers in the “area”, which implies that the legislative intent of the law is about protecting against a team leaving a metro area altogether as opposed to a specific city) is a 6 month delay to the new stadium proceeding as Haslam has no obligation to actually agree to sell the team to someone else. Plus, even if someone could pony up the money to buy the team at a number that Haslam would accept, it would almost certainly require a brand new dome stadium somewhere because that’s what people that have the money to pay $5 billion-plus for an NFL team would rationally require.

Whether public financing should be involved in any stadium deal is a completely fair debate. However, putting aside of who should pay for a stadium, if I’m realistically putting myself in the shoes of an NFL owner and wanted to build a new stadium in a Northern climate, it would 100% need to be a dome that can host events all year. The Bills have an owner that seems to have a true emotional attachment to the Buffalo area, so they’ll have a new outdoor stadium, but he’s essentially choosing to leave money on the table there. Any other owner in the North in today’s world would realistically want an indoor venue. So, the City of Cleveland proposal isn’t going to work unless they figure out a brand new dome proposal. The City is trying to offer Haslam a ranch house when he’s specifically stating that he doesn’t want a ranch house.

Cleveland might be a little more likely than Buffalo to get football stadium filling concerts and events indoors in winter but not much. Pittsburgh doesn't seem to think it would be worth it either. Is Taylor Swift doing three nights of shows in Cleveland or Pittsburgh in November - February regardless of if the shows themselves are inside? Point is, the Haslems turned down $460 million towards a $1.2 billion project and now have to figure out where to get $2.4 billion for their dome when they have zero goodwill with the county, who endorsed cleveland's proposal.

IANAL and obviously you are. The 96 Modell law has never been invoked, so it's never been challenged, and in my line of work of dealing with lawyers all the time, it does seem vague in some ways and we'd clearly have a court telling us what actual rights Cleveland has. But the law was threatened against Precourt when he wanted to move the Crew to Austin and in the end, MLS found a local buyer (the Haslems) and kept a team in Columbus when they were clearly interested in abandoning the city, giving Precourt a new team in Austin.

(10-25-2024 09:44 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-25-2024 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-25-2024 03:05 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  They might get one Super Bowl that loses money according to every study or economist who isn’t being paid by the NFL or a local government justifying losing millions of dollars. I doubt Metro Cleveland gets more than one Final Four for that matter and maybe not even that.

And Cleveland clearly decided that the number it’s worth to keep the Browns downtown in about $460 million. We might all have different opinions of whether/how much local governments should pay toward these things but that’s the number Cleveland decided on. They have no incentive to let the Browns walk while they have leverage.

There’s not really leverage for the city, though. As I noted before and the law professor noted in this latest article, the most that the City of Cleveland can really get even if this law actually applies (which is an open question since it refers to seeking other buyers in the “area”, which implies that the legislative intent of the law is about protecting against a team leaving a metro area altogether as opposed to a specific city) is a 6 month delay to the new stadium proceeding as Haslam has no obligation to actually agree to sell the team to someone else. Plus, even if someone could pony up the money to buy the team at a number that Haslam would accept, it would almost certainly require a brand new dome stadium somewhere because that’s what people that have the money to pay $5 billion-plus for an NFL team would rationally require.

Whether public financing should be involved in any stadium deal is a completely fair debate. However, putting aside of who should pay for a stadium, if I’m realistically putting myself in the shoes of an NFL owner and wanted to build a new stadium in a Northern climate, it would 100% need to be a dome that can host events all year. The Bills have an owner that seems to have a true emotional attachment to the Buffalo area, so they’ll have a new outdoor stadium, but he’s essentially choosing to leave money on the table there. Any other owner in the North in today’s world would realistically want an indoor venue. So, the City of Cleveland proposal isn’t going to work unless they figure out a brand new dome proposal. The City is trying to offer Haslam a ranch house when he’s specifically stating that he doesn’t want a ranch house.

Cleveland might be a little more likely than Buffalo to get football stadium filling concerts and events indoors in winter but not much. Pittsburgh doesn't seem to think it would be worth it either. Is Taylor Swift doing three nights of shows in Cleveland or Pittsburgh in November - February regardless of if the shows themselves are inside? Point is, the Haslems turned down $460 million towards a $1.2 billion project and now have to figure out where to get $2.4 billion for their dome when they have zero goodwill with the county, who endorsed cleveland's proposal.

IANAL and obviously you are. The 96 Modell law has never been invoked, so it's never been challenged, and in my line of work of dealing with lawyers all the time, it does seem vague in some ways and we'd clearly have a court telling us what actual rights Cleveland has. But the law was threatened against Precourt when he wanted to move the Crew to Austin and in the end, MLS found a local buyer (the Haslems) and kept a team in Columbus when they were clearly interested in abandoning the city, giving Precourt a new team in Austin.

To your point, the MLS situation is more indicative of market forces as opposed to the threat or strength of the Modell law itself. Ultimately, Precourt got what he wanted - an MLS team in Austin - because MLS was willing to grant him an expansion team in exchange for selling the Crew to Haslam. If Precourt didn’t get what he wanted, he would still have been able to move to Austin even if the law was invoked - the only difference would have been a 6 month delay.

In the Browns case, the chances of the NFL coming in with an expansion team for Cleveland if Haslam actually took them out of the market (much less the City of Cleveland itself) is nil. The law is not going to have any teeth as applied to the Browns because there is no realistic NFL expansion backstop alternative to offer to Haslam that was in place for Precourt for the MLS. Plus, there’s still the de facto market condition that even if the NFL were to somehow grant an expansion team or Haslam were to sell the Browns, anyone paying over $5 billion will almost certainly insist upon a brand new dome to stay in the Cleveland market at all.

Aaand not surprisingly, the Browns preemptively file suit:

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/...a011f65465

And Cuyahoga County is doubling down that they think this plan is DOA as far as getting public funding:

https://www.ideastream.org/government-po...adium-move

Good analysis from Neil deMause at fieldofschemes.com :

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2024/10/2...om-fisher/

With the city of Cleveland considering whether to file suit under the Art Modell Law to force Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam to offer the team for sale to local buyers before decamping to suburban Brook Park, the Haslams have taken the preemptive step of suing to block the Modell law on the grounds it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is too vague and probably a bunch of other things, the typography on the PDF is really hard to read. “Today’s action for declaratory judgment was filed to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward to make a new domed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park a reality,” said Browns COO Dave Jenkins, which is a nice way of saying, “These damn ‘laws’ and ‘democratic procedures’ were getting in the way of our stadium plans, that could not be allowed.”

Speaking of things getting in the way of the Browns’ Brook Park dome plans, Cuyahoga County executive Chris Ronayne has reiterated that he doesn’t want Ohio taxpayers footing $1.2 billion of the stadium bill, saying, “We have looked at the facts, and the facts are that, and I said it before, that the Brook Park play just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work from a financial standpoint, and it’s frankly very detrimental to our future.” Added Cleveland city law director Mark Griffin: “I want to say this to our state legislature … and to this court system: If you make moves to try to gut this city of one of our key corporate partners and money maker, all of us will remember. You will be up for reelection. You would have to deal with the city of Cleveland in some way, shape, form, or fashion, and none of us will ever forget it.”

With all due respect Frank, and I mean that as you bring as much to this place as anyone, this isn't a slam dunk in either direction. The Browns take the Modell Law as a serious threat and aren't safe or immune from it unless they can get it thrown out (and maybe they will). As far as the ownership being smart to want/demand a dome, there's such a thing as overplaying their hand. They need $1.2 billion in public funds and currently have zero. Brook Park has less than 20,000 people and doesn't have significant public cash and the county and state have no reason to help the team move from Cleveland, where the county already agreed they want the stadium and the city was committed to $460 million in public contribution.

This quote from the Cleveland Browns is some real chutzpah. Dave Jenkins, the team’s chief operating officer, said in a written statement that the Browns filed the lawsuit “to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward.”

Out of the political domain? The team wants $1.2 billion in taxpayer handouts!

Keep in mind if the trial is in Cleveland and a jury trial, a Browns win to move will be much harder. The law be damned.

How much does the city make from having the Browns in the city?

(10-26-2024 11:14 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  How much does the city make from having the Browns in the city?

The mayor earlier this week said $30 million a year. Didn’t say whether that’s true sales tax or more dubious “economic impact”. But that’s the number Cleveland’s rolling with.

(10-25-2024 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Whether public financing should be involved in any stadium deal is a completely fair debate. However, putting aside of who should pay for a stadium, if I’m realistically putting myself in the shoes of an NFL owner and wanted to build a new stadium in a Northern climate, it would 100% need to be a dome that can host events all year. The Bills have an owner that seems to have a true emotional attachment to the Buffalo area, so they’ll have a new outdoor stadium, but he’s essentially choosing to leave money on the table there. Any other owner in the North in today’s world would realistically want an indoor venue. So, the City of Cleveland proposal isn’t going to work unless they figure out a brand new dome proposal. The City is trying to offer Haslam a ranch house when he’s specifically stating that he doesn’t want a ranch house.

Imo we’re at a point where owners are more willing to privately fund stadiums if they’re especially wealthy (Kroenke) and they’re in a high-demand metro area (San Francisco/Santa Clara) for the sake of getting the project done with minimal political strife. I’m no sports finance expert, but the increase in team value along with the surrounding developments often help those stadiums like SoFi “pay for themselves” in a sense. The issue of course is when the owners are “poor” (McCaskeys) or the metro area isn’t large/wealthy enough to justify a huge development (Cleveland) so you hit an impasse. The NFL approving private equity investment up to 10% is likely intended to address the first issue, but not much can be done for the second besides public/private haggling.

I’m not super familiar with the Bills negotiation process but I recall that cost was a big factor in the roof conversation, their budget is $1.7B versus $2.4B proposed for the Browns. The roof might have been scrapped out of practicality to keep costs low in one of the smallest metro areas in the NFL.

(10-26-2024 11:46 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-26-2024 11:14 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  How much does the city make from having the Browns in the city?

The mayor earlier this week said $30 million a year. Didn’t say whether that’s true sales tax or more dubious “economic impact”. But that’s the number Cleveland’s rolling with.

The city doesn't get sales tax. That goes to the county.

The city does collect 2.5% municipal income tax from the salaries of every NFL player on the field in Cleveland. That revenue would shift to Brook Park based on that city's 2% rate if they move.

I share your skepticism about the economic impact, Joe. A baseball stadium or an indoor arena can juice up activity in a neighborhood given all the events they bring. By comparison, football stadiums only have a few events each year. Even if Brook Park were to get the MAC championship, a bowl game, and a couple of other events out of it, it's difficult to for me to see how this kind of public investment would really pay off.

Advocates will whisper "Super Bowl," but that's a one-off event. The economics of pro football stadiums seem a lot like the Olympics or film tax credits to me. It can be fun to host Olympics or a big Hollywood production -- but frightfully expensive for taxpayers.

Time for cities to stop paying for billionaire playgrounds. There is no ROI but just emotional attachment. I doubt many cities would vote for stadium taxes today unlike in the 1990s and early 2000s. There are no more American cities to move to so the NFL will need to decide if they are willing to go to Canada or the UK. Players would hate either choice so the NFL would need to make it worth the players while.

(10-26-2024 11:46 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-26-2024 11:14 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  How much does the city make from having the Browns in the city?

The mayor earlier this week said $30 million a year. Didn’t say whether that’s true sales tax or more dubious “economic impact”. But that’s the number Cleveland’s rolling with.

They would get sales tax from tickets, hotels, concessions, and food sold at surrounding restaurants and bars.

But what if the Browns never returned? People might spend money on other things and they would still generate sales tax. If a stadium is built down the road, Cleveland wouldn’t get tax from that, but people would still be getting hotels in the city. They would still probably have people eat in the city. Sports bars would still be packed out every Sunday. They just wouldn’t be on the hook for building and maintaining the facilities.

Cleveland might get one Super Bowl if they build a dome. The NFL likes going to cold places every now and then and probably wouldn’t mind going there. It would also draw people to the HOF as Canton isn’t that far away.

(10-17-2024 09:05 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(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

I don't know where you are getting the hotels are free nonsense. The Super Bowl is a big plus to the economy. But as you say, not much different than 3 nights of Taylor Swift concerts.

(10-25-2024 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-25-2024 03:05 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  They might get one Super Bowl that loses money according to every study or economist who isn’t being paid by the NFL or a local government justifying losing millions of dollars. I doubt Metro Cleveland gets more than one Final Four for that matter and maybe not even that.

And Cleveland clearly decided that the number it’s worth to keep the Browns downtown in about $460 million. We might all have different opinions of whether/how much local governments should pay toward these things but that’s the number Cleveland decided on. They have no incentive to let the Browns walk while they have leverage.

There’s not really leverage for the city, though. As I noted before and the law professor noted in this latest article, the most that the City of Cleveland can really get even if this law actually applies (which is an open question since it refers to seeking other buyers in the “area”, which implies that the legislative intent of the law is about protecting against a team leaving a metro area altogether as opposed to a specific city) is a 6 month delay to the new stadium proceeding as Haslam has no obligation to actually agree to sell the team to someone else. Plus, even if someone could pony up the money to buy the team at a number that Haslam would accept, it would almost certainly require a brand new dome stadium somewhere because that’s what people that have the money to pay $5 billion-plus for an NFL team would rationally require.

Whether public financing should be involved in any stadium deal is a completely fair debate. However, putting aside of who should pay for a stadium, if I’m realistically putting myself in the shoes of an NFL owner and wanted to build a new stadium in a Northern climate, it would 100% need to be a dome that can host events all year. The Bills have an owner that seems to have a true emotional attachment to the Buffalo area, so they’ll have a new outdoor stadium, but he’s essentially choosing to leave money on the table there. Any other owner in the North in today’s world would realistically want an indoor venue. So, the City of Cleveland proposal isn’t going to work unless they figure out a brand new dome proposal. The City is trying to offer Haslam a ranch house when he’s specifically stating that he doesn’t want a ranch house.

The NFL isn't going to let the Browns move again (outside the area). The Packers, Bears, Lions, Giants and Browns are institutions. They aren't moving. So the owner doesn't have the same leverage he would have in Jacksonville or Charlotte.