2024 NFL Offseason

[Sec19Row53]

5 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Because the team wouldn't be in the city he's a councilman of.... They'd hate that any business is moving to another jurisdiction

It would also be against the Art Modell law that they passed, which was stated earlier (I thought) but has been glossed over because someone wanted to call him a goober or something.

 

Odd that people are seemingly mad that a city would enforce a law designed to prevent a sports team from moving because they aren't moving far (but still out of the limits set by the law).

[Sykotyk]

11 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

It would also be against the Art Modell law that they passed, which was stated earlier (I thought) but has been glossed over because someone wanted to call him a goober or something.

 

Odd that people are seemingly mad that a city would enforce a law designed to prevent a sports team from moving because they aren't moving far (but still out of the limits set by the law).

Pretty sure the state law only restricted them to the state and not a particular jurisdiction. 

 

So potentially a move to Toledo would be allowed. An out of state move like the Crew tried under Precourt would result in a local buyer who wants to keep them in the state the option to buy them first. Though the law was never truly tested as MLS really didn't want to be the bad guy in it when the Haslams popped up with the big money to build a gleaming new stadium for the team Precourt just claimed couldn't survive in Columbus. 

 

And in the end the law helped everyone. Columbus got their wealthy owner and shiny new stadium. Two championships. One of the best rivalries in American soccer. Precourt moved to Austin and got what he wanted with an irrelevant expansion team. Win win win. As Michael Scott would say. 

[Sec19Row53]

9 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Pretty sure the state law only restricted them to the state and not a particular jurisdiction. 

 

So potentially a move to Toledo would be allowed. An out of state move like the Crew tried under Precourt would result in a local buyer who wants to keep them in the state the option to buy them first. Though the law was never truly tested as MLS really didn't want to be the bad guy in it when the Haslams popped up with the big money to build a gleaming new stadium for the team Precourt just claimed couldn't survive in Columbus. 

 

And in the end the law helped everyone. Columbus got their wealthy owner and shiny new stadium. Two championships. One of the best rivalries in American soccer. Precourt moved to Austin and got what he wanted with an irrelevant expansion team. Win win win. As Michael Scott would say. 

Thanks - I was under the impression that the law limited them to the City of Cleveland. I'm not sure if I read that, or assumed it.

[VDizzle12]

5 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Because the team wouldn't be in the city he's a councilman of.... They'd hate that any business is moving to another jurisdiction

 

The city has been playing hardball this whole time and I hope it bites them in the butt. They already control all of the development around the stadium, parking, etc. So the Browns only revenue on gameday comes from tickets, food and merch sales inside the stadium. The team is missing out on a ton of money and the city wants to keep it that way. They want to keep throwing a few million to polish that turd on the Lakefront and have no interest in the Browns building a stadium anywhere else in the city or county. There are rumors that they were eyeing land near Progressive Field and Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse, and the city shot that down.  

 

The current stadium is a pain to get to, parking sucks and there's not much to do around it. I've sat through so many miserable games there and not only because of the team on the field. The Browns need a stadium with a roof and the city needs to work with them to make it happen. If not, I say the Browns are free to build wherever they want. 

[Sykotyk]

5 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

 

The city has been playing hardball this whole time and I hope it bites them in the butt. They already control all of the development around the stadium, parking, etc. So the Browns only revenue on gameday comes from tickets, food and merch sales inside the stadium. The team is missing out on a ton of money and the city wants to keep it that way. They want to keep throwing a few million to polish that turd on the Lakefront and have no interest in the Browns building a stadium anywhere else in the city or county. There are rumors that they were eyeing land near Progressive Field and Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse, and the city shot that down.  

 

The current stadium is a pain to get to, parking sucks and there's not much to do around it. I've sat through so many miserable games there and not only because of the team on the field. The Browns need a stadium with a roof and the city needs to work with them to make it happen. If not, I say the Browns are free to build wherever they want. 

The post office site is about the best they'll find inside the city. The team, in the 90s, had the option of being part of the gateway complex that built Progressive and RMFH. But passed on it and the land that became the stadium was only secured for two stadiums.

 

As for why the city is playing hardball? They just spent $200m two years ago to renovate the stadium and now want an entirely new stadium. 

 

I personally want the browns to get a dome so the stadium can be used more than 12 times a year. But it's probably not going to be inside the city limits. Berea is not a bad location as road infrastructure and airport are right there already suitable for the 70k venue. 

[VDizzle12]

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

The post office site is about the best they'll find inside the city. The team, in the 90s, had the option of being part of the gateway complex that built Progressive and RMFH. But passed on it and the land that became the stadium was only secured for two stadiums.

 

As for why the city is playing hardball? They just spent $200m two years ago to renovate the stadium and now want an entirely new stadium. 

 

I personally want the browns to get a dome so the stadium can be used more than 12 times a year. But it's probably not going to be inside the city limits. Berea is not a bad location as road infrastructure and airport are right there already suitable for the 70k venue. 

 

I keep going back to the post office site. It just makes so much sense, but again would require the city to foot some of the bill. Regardless both sides will benefit from a new indoor stadium. Especially since it will almost guarantee major events coming to the city all year round. Not just Browns games and a handful of summer concerts. 

[Sykotyk]

7 hours ago, VDizzle12 said:

 

I keep going back to the post office site. It just makes so much sense, but again would require the city to foot some of the bill. Regardless both sides will benefit from a new indoor stadium. Especially since it will almost guarantee major events coming to the city all year round. Not just Browns games and a handful of summer concerts. 

And in all honesty, the post office needs a new, modern, HUGE facility located somewhere closer to a major transit connection outside the city. The old need to build these massive facilities as close to city centers as possible was a relic of thinking that most of the workforce and parcel delivery would be happening in the city. Build a giant facility where 8 and 80 interchange is. Or near Berea, Independent, or Warrensville Heights near 480/271/422 interchanges.

 

That land inside the city could be used for so much more than relaying mail between various local hubs.

 

As for a dome. It's the only stadium I support now. As much as I LOVE outdoor football in December, it's no longer a wise financial decision for stadiums that will be over $1 billion at the cheap end. The stadium needs a lot of use to make it worth while. Look at the NCAA Women's March Madness. More of those events are going to be able to utilize a Cleveland domed stadium. Bowl games? Neutral site college games (Ohio State v. MAC school like they tried to do once at CBS and then never again). High school events (Yeah, low budget, but they give the facility use, such as state titles in football, soccer, lacrosse, etc). Major conventions, concerts, and events like the men's or women's march madness (The Women's game is outgrowing regular arenas and won't be available soon). Yeah, the Super Bowl would probably happen if only as an incentive by the league to build it as they've done in Minnesota (twice), Detroit/Pontiac (twice) Indianapolis (once),... especially since the NFL doesn't take bids from cities any more and just picks and chooses which stadiums they want to host it at.

 

In the end, if the movers and shakers of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County build another outdoor stadium for the Browns, they need to all be required to pay the bill themselves. It's not worth it anymore.

[The_Admiral]

How many March Madnesseseseseseses are there that every Hooterville in America thinks they can justify building a domed stadium by getting one? I might argue that it's unwise to create a race to the bottom that Indianapolis and New Orleans will generally win anyway.

[infrared41]

14 minutes ago, The_Admiral said:

How many March Madnesseseseseseses are there that every Hooterville in America thinks they can justify building a domed stadium by getting one? I might argue that it's unwise to create a race to the bottom that Indianapolis and New Orleans will generally win anyway.

 

My guess is we'll have some concerts and stuff at the new place too. Maybe a monster truck show as well. Hell, we might even get Wrestlemania here in Hooterville: Lake Erie Edition.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, that's the other one. Arlington Heights will be worth it in the end because we'll get a WrestleMania. Maybe ours will set the record with 50 run-ins in a single match.

[BBTV]

The Browns and Bears in domes feels so wrong.  I see those two teams as kinda the representation of American football - classic-traditional uniforms, they play where there's real autumn weather, and there's something about being in the midwest / rust belt that just seems "footbally" to me.  Brown and orange in natural light contrasting against the green of natural grass makes me tingle in places that I probably shouldn't.

 

I've said before that I think all new stadiums should have some kind of cover (at least a Safeco-ish type), and I'm not really backing down from that, but the covers should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances (for football) - and there should be national laws that dictate that the roofs must be open 90% of the time (with violators serving up to 5 years in a federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison.). But I'd make exceptions if it meant keeping teams like the Browns, Bears, maybe Packers as true representations of American football.

 

 

[Fowler2]

These mega billionaire owners want to cater to their type of fan. Make them comfortable in their taxpayer funded playgrounds. Pro sports isn't for us regular schmucks anymore. 

[BBTV]

 

[SFGiants58]

A fart sums up his GM days with the 49ers too damn well.

[Lights Out]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:31 AM, Sykotyk said:

As for why the city is playing hardball? They just spent $200m two years ago to renovate the stadium and now want an entirely new stadium. 

 

This is the exact same BS that Alex Spanos pulled in the '90s that got the ball rolling on the Chargers' eventual relocation. He demanded expensive renovations to the Q, got them, and then immediately started demanding a new stadium and threatening to move to LA.

 

I hope this doesn't end in Cleveland losing the Browns again, but I won't be surprised at all if it does. The NFL's greed is out of control.

[MJWalker45]

On 4/13/2024 at 9:18 AM, BBTV said:

The Browns and Bears in domes feels so wrong.  I see those two teams as kinda the representation of American football - classic-traditional uniforms, they play where there's real autumn weather, and there's something about being in the midwest / rust belt that just seems "footbally" to me.  Brown and orange in natural light contrasting against the green of natural grass makes me tingle in places that I probably shouldn't.

 

I've said before that I think all new stadiums should have some kind of cover (at least a Safeco-ish type), and I'm not really backing down from that, but the covers should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances (for football) - and there should be national laws that dictate that the roofs must be open 90% of the time (with violators serving up to 5 years in a federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison.). But I'd make exceptions if it meant keeping teams like the Browns, Bears, maybe Packers as true representations of American football.

 

 

Cities need to make use of these stadiums year round now. If that means a dime or retractable roof, then by all means get it done. Moving a stadium to the suburbs isn't the same as losing the team to another city. It's also important to know that the options for these owners to move to are drying up. They need to realize they have to pay more for these stadiums then they had to prior. The Chiefs tried to threaten KC voters to get what they want and got rebuffed. The Browns would likely receive the same treatment as well. 

[BBTV]

10 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Moving a stadium to the suburbs isn't the same as losing the team to another city.

 

In some cases it could be just as bad for the fan base and former-host-city.  Our city-wage tax is 4%, so even if the athletes don't live in the city, they're still paying that for practicing and playing here.  That's not nothing (plus the revenue the city gets for fan-related things.). Also in areas so dependent on transit, a move to the suburbs could potentially make games inaccessible (or at least much more difficult to access) for people.

 

I just think if those cities need domes, then they should be forced open for the majority of the time, unless conditions are such that the athletes are at heightened risk for injury.  Build them in a way that the fans are mostly protected from rain, and keep them open.

 

Every mid-atlantic and northeast baseball stadium should be like Safeco, no exceptions.  None.  Not one.  The "umbrella" concept needs to be implemented yesterday.

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

Cities need to make use of these stadiums year round now. If that means a dime or retractable roof, then by all means get it done. Moving a stadium to the suburbs isn't the same as losing the team to another city. It's also important to know that the options for these owners to move to are drying up. They need to realize they have to pay more for these stadiums then they had to prior. The Chiefs tried to threaten KC voters to get what they want and got rebuffed. The Browns would likely receive the same treatment as well. 

 

There has been significant pushback against publicly funded stadiums for sports teams in the last year or so and the only one that has been successful is the OKC Thunder's attempts to get a new arena, which was voted "yes" by I think an 80-20 margin.  

[Sykotyk]

6 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

There has been significant pushback against publicly funded stadiums for sports teams in the last year or so and the only one that has been successful is the OKC Thunder's attempts to get a new arena, which was voted "yes" by I think an 80-20 margin.  

I think the ramifications still reverberating from covid has soured people much more on any wealthy person insisting that government money to help them when those people voting aren't feeling like they're doing well at all. 

 

The Eat The Rich attitude is alive and well right now. 

[The_Admiral]

9 hours ago, GDAWG said:

There has been significant pushback against publicly funded stadiums for sports teams in the last year or so and the only one that has been successful is the OKC Thunder's attempts to get a new arena, which was voted "yes" by I think an 80-20 margin.