Haslam plotting Browns trade?

[AZ_]

Cleveland media at the owners meetings today should get as many people possible on the record saying the team will not be going anywhere.

Would be a bunch of people with little idea of what they're talking about, at this point. I can't imagine it's not on the table.

 

[Chris]

Would be a bunch of people with little idea of what they're talking about, at this point. I can't imagine it's not on the table.

....wut?

 

[AZ_]

....wut?

They can say the Browns aren't going anywhere, but they probably aren't in a position to be commenting on it.

 

[crabbyshark]

Would be a bunch of people with little idea of what they're talking about, at this point. I can't imagine it's not on the table.

Yes but this past year has been brutal for the NFL from a PR standpoint. Anything that could make them look bad down the road would help. The Vikings seemed like they were close to leaving Minnesota recently but fan outrage helped put the kibosh on that nonsense.

 

[Chris]

They can say the Browns aren't going anywhere, but they probably aren't in a position to be commenting on it.

I guess I misinterpreted "It's on the table."

 

[AZ_]

Yes but this past year has been brutal for the NFL from a PR standpoint. Anything that could make them look bad down the road would help. The Vikings seemed like they were close to leaving Minnesota recently but fan outrage helped put the kibosh on that nonsense.

That had more to do with getting the city to pay for a portion of the new stadium, but there is going to be fan outrage no matter who moves in the near future.

Make no mistake, a move is coming from some team.


You've got an owner with no ties to the city, with no pulse of the city, with a terrible team that is consistently shit on. I can't imagine it's not a discussion for some of these owners.

 

[crabbyshark]

That had more to do with getting the city to pay for a portion of the new stadium, but there is going to be fan outrage no matter who moves in the near future.

Make no mistake, a move is coming from some team.


You've got an owner with no ties to the city, with no pulse of the city, with a terrible team that is consistently shit on. I can't imagine it's not a discussion for some of these owners.

Definitely.

In the Browns case, if Roger Goodell says something like: "I can't comment on the future of the Browns" fans are whipped into insta-frenzy. No NFL fans/media wants to see Browns move. If Goodell says "Browns are not going anywhere" future ammo if the team moving does become less abstract. The NFL is incredibly sensitive about its image right now and this stuff matters, especially with Obama introducing new regulations for sports leagues.

The Chargers, Raiders, Rams, or any of the Florida teams make more sense to move. Browns probably not going anywhere but one scary aspect common to Modell/Haslam is questionable financial situations.

 

[macbdog]

It's one thing to not give a warning. It's another to have Greg Aiello tell people that the Browns aren't going anywhere. If you need indication of this, look no further than a $120 million investment just made to the stadium on the lakefront in CLEVELAND.

...120m that the swapping owner would owe Jimmuh, or at least 120m he would look to recoup in the sale swap.

This is so going down, it is just too absurd not to. Watch it turn out to be brokered by David Modell or something.

Also the NFL made 700m the last time we lost a team. The expansion team could easily leave but the city would not be out a team for long. NFL wouldn't bypass the 1 billion it would make expanding again. Worrying about this team leaving is just hilarious. The market is too ripe.

 

[Simon]

 

[spydy13]

Nothing like calling out your colleagues and claiming that they are on the take.

This guy really is a class act.

 

[Soda]

The confusion in some media reports and on-line blogs and comments sections is that some have mistakenly led people to believe that the $2 million annual payments for 15-years ($30 million), would off-set future payments of capital repairs as detailed in the remaining payments listed above in what is called the Lease Agreement’s Schedule 14(f). Or, that the expenditure of the $12 million of the current $24 million of sin-tax proceeds would reduce the balloon payments and total amount from Schedule 14(f). The fact is that the $30 million is in addition to the current $39,450,000 Capital Repairs that the City is obligated to pay. This will bring our total obligations to $82,500,000.

http://brian-cummins.blogspot.com/2013/11/browns-120-million-proposed-capital.html

I would bet that if we could see all the numbers, Cleveland is paying the whole bill. If Cleveland became unwilling to do so, there are other cities who would be more than happy to pick up the tab.

Yes! I'm so happy you went here! I know councilman Cummins AND I was in the room for this. And... Quoting a blog of one councilman? Especially one who is not interested in improvements outside his Ward? C'mon..
I even overheard Councilman Jeff Johnson telling Zack Reed that he's not voting because "I want a new Rec center in my ward" when the Mayor had his press release alongside Joe Banner.

Put flatly, you're not correct in your $82 million assumption as it tries to muddy the distinction between capital improvements and improvements that sin-tax dollars are reserved for. Councilman Cummins lumps together the obligation of the City to maintain it's property with the financing of the FirstEnergy Stadium modernization project. Those two projects aren't interrelated really at all as Haslam is still committing $90 million dollars on things the Sin Tax can't be used for. Atop that, the Cleveland pro franchises (read: Browns, Cavs, Indians) have to pitch the City/County via presentation on things they would like to use that money towards. On top of THAT, there's a list of what the sin-tax can be used on. Do you know what the sin-tax dollars can ONLY be used for things like ADA accommodations (i.e. handicapped ramps, elevators, accessible bathrooms, etc.) and other necessary upkeep for keeping up to code as well as other City/County obligations?

I'm not going to explain the ownership of the stadium, but the stadiums are the property of the City. Yep, that means if the Browns, Cavs or Indians DO leave, the City is on the hook for keeping the place up to code or bulldozing it. That is completely separate and not to be confused with Haslam's ponying up of $90 million for things he's paying for 3/4 of (i.e. new scoreboards, nicer carpets, bars, etc.). He still took over $90 million in loans in the name of his franchise...

To fund the project, the Browns will use a $62 million loan from the NFL, the money from the city and a bank loan to cover the remainder. The city, which owns the stadium, will provide $2 million in funding each year for the next 15 years. The $30 million represents a present-day value of $22 million.
http://www.multihousingnews.com/cit...stadium-modernization-project/1004094323.html

One thing Councilman Cummings is correct on (in my opinion) is that these deals for stadiums being built aren't ever really City friendly. The blog is a blog and it's full of many gripes. Some well guided and some not.

For some more rounded info:

http://lawlibrary.case.edu/2014/05/05/issue-7-sin-tax/
http://council.cuyahogacounty.us/pd.../20140121-ClevelandExciseTax-Presentation.pdf

This all said. The Browns are going nowhere.​

 

[Soda]

...120m that the swapping owner would owe Jimmuh, or at least 120m he would look to recoup in the sale swap.

This is a good point; however, if you were looking to sell a franchise would you invest your own liquidity into it, or try to keep the product as "customizable" for the next owner as possible?

Something tells me that IF Haslam was planning this: 1) He'd already have known about this process when he purchased the Browns and; 2) He'd probably like to keep his assets as liquid as possible.

Haslam immediately committed $90+ million to the stadium. I don't think it was with the idea of turning it around to a new owner basically spending their money for them to the tune of 90 mil.

 

[macbdog]

This is a good point; however, if you were looking to sell a franchise would you invest your own liquidity into it, or try to keep the product as "customizable" for the next owner as possible?

Something tells me that IF Haslam was planning this: 1) He'd already have known about this process when he purchased the Browns and; 2) He'd probably like to keep his assets as liquid as possible.

Haslam immediately committed $90+ million to the stadium. I don't think it was with the idea of turning it around to a new owner basically spending their money for them to the tune of 90 mil.

I would think the team being well below the cap makes them look more appealing to a new owner than the extra money they have to chip in for a newly improved stadium. Lets be honest, that money spent to improve the stadium only benefits the next owner. Haslam has kept it 'liquid' where he needs to with the low payroll.

This team is in a perfect spot for a swap. Doershuk hinting at Eddie DeBartolo riding back into an owners suite might be the best (I.e. most ludicrious) option. I'm completely on board with this and I think fans need to begin clamoring for it to happen, even if we need to research the hurdles for Haslam. Crowd source this.

 

[Soda]

I would think the team being well below the cap makes them look more appealing to a new owner than the extra money they have to chip in for a newly improved stadium. Lets be honest, that money spent to improve the stadium only benefits the next owner. Haslam has kept it 'liquid' where he needs to with the low payroll.

So, you think the extra $30 million is going to tip the scale either way for a potential owner? I sure as shit don't.

Frankly, you trying to sell me that a shitty team with a low payroll being buying incentive (saving you $30ish million until you decide not to suck) is more without merit than my assumption that a potential new owner wouldn't want some other guy spending $90 million for them.

 

[macbdog]

So, you think the extra $30 million is going to tip the scale either way for a potential owner? I sure as shit don't.

Frankly, you trying to sell me that a shitty team with a low payroll being buying incentive (saving you $30ish million until you decide not to suck) is more without merit than my assumption that a potential new owner wouldn't want some other guy spending $90 million for them.

You are being shortsighted on the actual benefit of a low payroll in a capped league for an incoming owner. It has little to do with the money saved and more to do with flexibility it allows. NBA owners frquently cut payroll before selling to make the team more appealing. This was a factor in the Cavs sale to Gilbert and why Gund got out when he did. This is proven, especially for franchises in capped sports. The owner then has room to improve his product immediately and thus his revenues (and his ego). Has been shown time and again. the renovations in the stadium, however, where going to occur regardless- sasp if the new owner is paying that as part of the cost to acquire the team or afterwards, he is still paying it.