Browns Adding to Game Day Experience

[7foot3]

For one, I am for it. Call me crazy, but I'd like the City to be looked at positively for something. Also, the people complaining about roads and other things haven't paid any attention to their mayor and what he said. Shocking.

For two, the Browns already have $24 million in a fund that is from sin tax that we previously agreed to. $12 million of that will go to the stadium after these renovations. That 12 million will go for capital maintenance and would've regardless of what happened with this modernization project. $12 million will then be left for future maintenance projects.

Finally, no, nothing about my explanation is poor. The City is paying two million per year for fifteen years under this deal. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about the time value of money, which I explained already. Short story, it is a deal where Mayor Jackson and the Browns agreed upon 30 million and framed it to say that by the time payments are made with future inflation taken into account, the cost will really be around 22 million.

So yes, this is a good deal for the City. The Browns are footing over 80% of the project and asking the City for under 20% of the cost. This is on top of the lease agreement the Browns have made to rent out the City's property.

So many people make it sound like we're paying for the Browns' shit, when really the Browns are paying to upgrade a City property. Oh, the travesty!

But the city IS paying for the Browns' shit. And it's not a good deal for the city. A good deal for the city would be not being on the hook for improving Haslam's bottom line, period. Anything they have to pay to help him make money is not a good deal for the city.

I see you really believe that there is something to be gained by having a fancy new stadium. I just don't see it. Your best example seems to be that we'll get a couple prime time games. So? How much money does that actually bring back to the city? If this is about civic pride, we'll it's been proven time and again that there are better ways to increase civic pride than building stadiums. Finding ways to keep all these kids in the state after they graduate college would be a much better investment than giving drunk Browns fans a bigger scoreboard. If this is simply "I'm a Browns fan, and I don't care that it will cost the city more, I like sitting in a fancy stadium", then fine, I get it. But you then have to accept how it's a bad deal for a whole lot of other people.

 

[Binkster]

I see you really believe that there is something to be gained by having a fancy new stadium. I just don't see it..

How quickly we forget the past.

1995 ringing a bell? A frustrated owner turning his back on a city after several memorable decades? Why? Because the city didn't want to fund a new stadium. And what happened when they left? The non-football fans and the people who didn't support a new stadium realized how much revenue this city lost as a result of the franchise's displacement.

Panic ensued and a hastily made piece of crap was constructed to get them back. Now we need to fix that mistake.

I'm not saying it will happen again. I'm not saying Haslam will ever harbor bad blood for this city. But Christ, if the owner is willing to pay upwards of $100 million dollars to fix the toilet we currently play in, you have his back and you chip in a few bucks in (sin) tax dollars.

Keep buying your cigarettes and booze and the world will keep on spinning.

 

[Soda]

But the city IS paying for the Browns' shit. And it's not a good deal for the city. A good deal for the city would be not being on the hook for improving Haslam's bottom line, period. Anything they have to pay to help him make money is not a good deal for the city.

So, you don't want an NFL team, then? Ok, that's your choice. Go through other stadium deals and let me know when you find one that is more favorable for the City they're representing. It's both ignorant and short-sighted to assume that we're going to bend over a for-profit organization.

 

[7foot3]

So, you don't want an NFL team, then? Ok, that's your choice. Go through other stadium deals and let me know when you find one that is more favorable for the City they're representing. It's both ignorant and short-sighted to assume that we're going to bend over a for-profit organization.

Cities have been bending over for sports teams for generations now. That everyone else does it is not a good argument that we need to keep doing it.

How quickly we forget the past.

1995 ringing a bell? A frustrated owner turning his back on a city after several memorable decades? Why? Because the city didn't want to fund a new stadium. And what happened when they left? The non-football fans and the people who didn't support a new stadium realized how much revenue this city lost as a result of the franchise's displacement.

Panic ensued and a hastily made piece of crap was constructed to get them back. Now we need to fix that mistake.

I'm not saying it will happen again. I'm not saying Haslam will ever harbor bad blood for this city. But Christ, if the owner is willing to pay upwards of $100 million dollars to fix the toilet we currently play in, you have his back and you chip in a few bucks in (sin) tax dollars.

Keep buying your cigarettes and booze and the world will keep on spinning.

Yeah, it really sucked that Modell was an asshole, but a struggling city shouldn't have been responsible for keeping him afloat. Even with a better stadium in Baltimore, he still couldn't make money owning a NFL team. The city shouldn't be left holding a bill when rich guys make bad business decisions.

And go ahead and show me how much revenue was lost compared to much it cost to build the stadiums. It's been proven time and time again that stadiums are poor investments for cities.

 

[Soda]

Cities have been bending over for sports teams for generations now. That everyone else does it is not a good argument that we need to keep doing it.

So, then you'd rather not have a team than do business with them? That's fine if its your stance, but that's where you're heading.

Yeah, it really sucked that Modell was an asshole, but a struggling city shouldn't have been responsible for keeping him afloat. Even with a better stadium in Baltimore, he still couldn't make money owning a NFL team. The city shouldn't be left holding a bill when rich guys make bad business decisions.

And go ahead and show me how much revenue was lost compared to much it cost to build the stadiums. It's been proven time and time again that stadiums are poor investments for cities.

The lease the Browns got is pretty much the same deal Modell got in Baltimore. If you're arguing that wanting the NFL in your city isn't really profitable, that's fine. I guess I'd just rather have a team to be proud of than have nothing. Hard to have your cake and eat it too in that situation. Just my take.

 

[7foot3]

So, then you'd rather not have a team than do business with them? That's fine if its your stance, but that's where you're heading.



The lease the Browns got is pretty much the same deal Modell got in Baltimore. If you're arguing that wanting the NFL in your city isn't really profitable, that's fine. I guess I'd just rather have a team to be proud of than have nothing. Hard to have your cake and eat it too in that situation. Just my take.

I think you can do business with a team without bending over and taking it. I do think the deal between the Browns and Cleveland is better than most, but that still doesn't mean that it isn't a negative and that almost all stadium deals are really shitty for the city/county. The new stadium in Atlanta is receiving $300 million from a county that just ended up $86 million short on their school budget, and is openly admitting that employees are going to have to take furloughs.

As long as you're saying that you're fine with higher taxes, county employees losing paychecks, and less spent on more essential infrastructure to have a team, that's fine. I have no problem with that argument if that's what you prefer. I still don't think cities should be taking on the costs of these uber-rich owners, but I can see your argument. As long as we don't wade into the bullshit arguments about how it will actually make the city money, because that just isn't true.

 

[AZ_]

Teams have been bending over backwards for professional sports franchises because of the profound impact they have on a cities economy, tourism, ect.

They're a huge deal, and they'd be wise to keep them happy as best they can.

 

[shoes22]

But the city IS paying for the Browns' shit. And it's not a good deal for the city. A good deal for the city would be not being on the hook for improving Haslam's bottom line, period. Anything they have to pay to help him make money is not a good deal for the city.

But the team isn't asking for anything more than what was already agreed upon in the city's lease agreement with the team and stadium in 1999. Up until now, the city hasn't paid a cent of that.
That money would have been paid regardless. You couldn't have asked for a better deal for the city, considering the circumstances.

 

[7foot3]

the profound impact they have on a cities economy, tourism, ect.

Study after study has shown that publicly financed stadiums have a profoundly negative impact on a city's economy.

But the team isn't asking for anything more than what was already agreed upon in the city's lease agreement with the team and stadium in 1999. Up until now, the city hasn't paid a cent of that.
That money would have been paid regardless. You couldn't have asked for a better deal for the city, considering the circumstances.

And how does that change that the city is still paying for the Browns' shit? Yeah, they got snookered in 1999, not now, so they're stuck paying, but that doesn't make the deal any better today.

 

[Ocelot]

Study after study has shown that publicly financed stadiums have a profoundly negative impact on a city's economy.





And how does that change that the city is still paying for the Browns' shit? Yeah, they got snookered in 1999, not now, so they're stuck paying, but that doesn't make the deal any better today.

Andrew Zimbalist should be required reading for anyone who wants to comment regarding the public financing.

It's probably just easier to view a professional sports franchise as a luxury item for a city and accept that the return on investment may not necessarily be positive. If anyone is that upset about public funding for a stadium, there are no shortage of places you can live where that won't be an issue. At the same time, there are also no shortage of cities that are more than willing to put up public funding to attract a professional team...

 

[Simon]

Meeting with the city is supposedly happening right now.

 

[chrisrich91]

Follow @LullOnSports for coverage. He's tweeting quotes every step of the way.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Johnson contends that there is &quot;no proof&quot; that components to existing scoreboard won't be around in 10 years.</p>&mdash; Joe Lull (@LullOnSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/LullOnSports/statuses/405002329520230400">November 25, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go fuck yourself, dude.

 

[Pyro]

Hope the city says no to whatever they can say no to. Get a winning team first. Fuck the stadium. People will come see a winning team even if there are no fucking seats.

 

[Simon]

Follow @LullOnSports for coverage. He's tweeting quotes every step of the way.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Johnson contends that there is "no proof" that components to existing scoreboard won't be around in 10 years.</p>— Joe Lull (@LullOnSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/LullOnSports/statuses/405002329520230400">November 25, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go fuck yourself, dude.

From what I am seeing on twitter, that Johnson guy seems like an asshole.

 

[AZ_]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Banner lets out that by reducing capacity and moving some seats, Browns think they may increase actual amount of people attending games...</p>&mdash; Joe Lull (@LullOnSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/LullOnSports/statuses/405016183235018752">November 25, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Known fact Browns giveaway a number of tickets through partners and charities, have empty seats in upper decks frequently.</p>&mdash; Joe Lull (@LullOnSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/LullOnSports/statuses/405016363666001920">November 25, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Wanted to throw this out there, as there had been some disagreement on it in the past. Browns are seemingly admitting it now.