Skip to content

Bold idea that would change the landscape of sports in Cleveland

The Browns Board
355 22 6.5k
  • @dutch-oven said:

    Yeah, it does matter. It matters because apparently the owners of the Detroit Lions, Indianapolis Colts, Seattle Seahawks, Minnesota Vikings and Atlanta Falcons all built new stadiums in their respective downtowns, or just outside it, for nothing resembling your 300 acres or 200 acres. 

    No, it doesn't matter a cabbage fart what those guys did....IF the Haslam's and the league were to get what they want.

    Now...IF there were to be a new stadium, could they settle for something less than what they want?  Sure. They could look at scaling thing down, because they can't get what they want.   But it has nothing to do with what these other teams do.   The "other" teams that are the models for what NFL owners likely will want in the future are the ones I previously mentioned....Cowboys/Pats/LA etc......the ones with a lot of developable land. 

    Dutch OvenD Dutch Oven wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    No, it doesn't matter a cabbage fart what those guys did....IF the Haslam's and the league were to get what they want.

    Now...IF there were to be a new stadium, could they settle for something less than what they want?  Sure. They could look at scaling thing down, because they can't get what they want.   But it has nothing to do with what these other teams do.   The "other" teams that are the models for what NFL owners likely will want in the future are the ones I previously mentioned....Cowboys/Pats/LA etc......the ones with a lot of developable land. 

    Basically, if examples that refute Gipper's argument are found, they are not important and should be disregarded. 

    Maybe Tour is on to something... 

  • @the-gipper said:

    No, it doesn't matter a cabbage fart what those guys did....IF the Haslam's and the league were to get what they want.

    Now...IF there were to be a new stadium, could they settle for something less than what they want?  Sure. They could look at scaling thing down, because they can't get what they want.   But it has nothing to do with what these other teams do.   The "other" teams that are the models for what NFL owners likely will want in the future are the ones I previously mentioned....Cowboys/Pats/LA etc......the ones with a lot of developable land. 

    Basically, if examples that refute Gipper's argument are found, they are not important and should be disregarded. 

    Maybe Tour is on to something... 

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by

    @dutch-oven said:

    Maybe Tour is on to something... 

    It's your time... do with it as you will. 😉

  • @the-gipper said:

    I am far less impressed with downtown Atlanta than you are.   It might be bigger than Cleveland's, but greater is not a term I would use.  Sorry.

    If you couldn't figure out that was sarcasm, I honestly feel bad for you. 

    Jesus Christ, I would have paid money to see you in court. That had to be hilarious.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @dutch-oven said:

    If you couldn't figure out that was sarcasm, I honestly feel bad for you. 

    Jesus Christ, I would have paid money to see you in court. That had to be hilarious.

    OK.  No, I didn't catch that it was sarcasm, as there are people that sing the praises of Atlanta.  To me, its just OK.

    And you CAN pay money to see me in court.   I can send you my court schedule if you would like. Doylestown Mayor's Court. Not far from Canal Fulton.

    (and please....recognize this as sarcasm....for as my magisterial duties are concerned, you can see that for free....but otherwise, yes, you would have to pay dearly)

  • @the-gipper said:

    No, it doesn't matter a cabbage fart what those guys did....IF the Haslam's and the league were to get what they want.

    Now...IF there were to be a new stadium, could they settle for something less than what they want?  Sure. They could look at scaling thing down, because they can't get what they want.   But it has nothing to do with what these other teams do.   The "other" teams that are the models for what NFL owners likely will want in the future are the ones I previously mentioned....Cowboys/Pats/LA etc......the ones with a lot of developable land. 

    Basically, if examples that refute Gipper's argument are found, they are not important and should be disregarded. 

    Maybe Tour is on to something... 

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @dutch-oven said:

    Basically, if examples that refute Gipper's argument are found, they are not important and should be disregarded. 

    Maybe Tour is on to something... 

    Not saying they should be disregarded....but, I am telling you those are NOT the trend,  and they are NOT really what the NFL and a lot of their owners want.  Do they "settle" for a small footprint stadium arrangement?   Sure they do, as I said, in situations where they are getting the vast public subsidies to build these stadiums. Those particular owners decided not to go with the Kraft/Jones/Kroenke/York/Khan model because they wanted the easy way in.  And could the Haslam's "settle" for the easy way in as well?  Sure, if they don't want to go through the work and process of doing it the newer way.   But I believe ab initio, their primary goal IS to explore doing it by the mega-development method...because "your" way is now just really the "settle" method of doing it.   The Haslams have the money to at least consider privately financing their development.     Buffet paid 2.76 Billion for just a 38.6% share of Pilot.   By 2023 he will purchase a stake in company to where he will be 80% owner, with the Haslam's owning the rest.  That could be another 4 billion in Haslam's pocket. More than enough to start financing a megadevelopment if they wanted.  With that kind of ready cash that will be available to them soon...and seeing the Pats/Rams/Cowboys etc model out there.....why oh why would they just settle?

    So, again, you may be right. Maybe the Haslam's will settle....as the NFL has always in the past really relied on the taxpayer footing their facility bills, and maybe that temptation to blackmail the city again for the big money they can get out of all us will be there.  It has been a proven tactic of success for the NFL owners in the past.  But now there is another mode in the way of doing things...where, while it may cost them a lot more to do private financing, the ultimate return may be vastly higher than even when they have someone else paying for things.  After all, if a city is financing YOUR business facility, they are going to want a big cut in return.  

    And, no, you don't want to conclude that Tour is on to something.  His method is just to be a little cunny and run and hide from any reasonable argument.  You at least stand your ground. 

  • @dutch-oven said:

    If you couldn't figure out that was sarcasm, I honestly feel bad for you. 

    Jesus Christ, I would have paid money to see you in court. That had to be hilarious.

    OK.  No, I didn't catch that it was sarcasm, as there are people that sing the praises of Atlanta.  To me, its just OK.

    And you CAN pay money to see me in court.   I can send you my court schedule if you would like. Doylestown Mayor's Court. Not far from Canal Fulton.

    (and please....recognize this as sarcasm....for as my magisterial duties are concerned, you can see that for free....but otherwise, yes, you would have to pay dearly)

    mjp28M mjp28 wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    OK.  No, I didn't catch that it was sarcasm, as there are people that sing the praises of Atlanta.  To me, its just OK.

    And you CAN pay money to see me in court.   I can send you my court schedule if you would like. Doylestown Mayor's Court. Not far from Canal Fulton.

    (and please....recognize this as sarcasm....for as my magisterial duties are concerned, you can see that for free....but otherwise, yes, you would have to pay dearly)

    I think that begins with "your honor I".........

    If that would ever happen to anyone here maybe you could give us a BROWNS BOARD discount, eh ?

  • @ballpeen said:

    It shouldn't.  The stadium isn't very good.  It was built in haste and on the cheap.  It's kind of like a medium level builders spec home.  It's OK for 20 years, then things start falling apart.

    I would love to see the plans for the OTHER ideas they had for the stadium, because the rumor was that the one they picked was basically the most generic one. 

    hoortaH hoorta wrote on last edited by

    @dutch-oven said:

    I would love to see the plans for the OTHER ideas they had for the stadium, because the rumor was that the one they picked was basically the most generic one. 

    In part true. We'll  use a cookie cutter  plan because the architectural guys already  had something  similar,  and it cuts down on  costs. BUT, the plan also was to keep the "feel" of the old stadium  as much as possible,  resulting in  my major  gripe about the  place. The inadequate room behind the  stands relative to any "modern" stadium.  If you've  ever been to  Ford Field, Lucas Oil, or Paul Brown  you know  what  I'm  talking about.  

    @dutch-oven said:

    If you couldn't figure out that was sarcasm, I honestly feel bad for you. 

    Jesus Christ, I would have paid money to see you in court. That had to be hilarious.

    Sorry  Dutch your sarcasm comes through  very poorly the majority  of the time. Gipper  isn't the only one who doesn't  see it.  

  • @dutch-oven said:

    Basically, if examples that refute Gipper's argument are found, they are not important and should be disregarded. 

    Maybe Tour is on to something... 

    Not saying they should be disregarded....but, I am telling you those are NOT the trend,  and they are NOT really what the NFL and a lot of their owners want.  Do they "settle" for a small footprint stadium arrangement?   Sure they do, as I said, in situations where they are getting the vast public subsidies to build these stadiums. Those particular owners decided not to go with the Kraft/Jones/Kroenke/York/Khan model because they wanted the easy way in.  And could the Haslam's "settle" for the easy way in as well?  Sure, if they don't want to go through the work and process of doing it the newer way.   But I believe ab initio, their primary goal IS to explore doing it by the mega-development method...because "your" way is now just really the "settle" method of doing it.   The Haslams have the money to at least consider privately financing their development.     Buffet paid 2.76 Billion for just a 38.6% share of Pilot.   By 2023 he will purchase a stake in company to where he will be 80% owner, with the Haslam's owning the rest.  That could be another 4 billion in Haslam's pocket. More than enough to start financing a megadevelopment if they wanted.  With that kind of ready cash that will be available to them soon...and seeing the Pats/Rams/Cowboys etc model out there.....why oh why would they just settle?

    So, again, you may be right. Maybe the Haslam's will settle....as the NFL has always in the past really relied on the taxpayer footing their facility bills, and maybe that temptation to blackmail the city again for the big money they can get out of all us will be there.  It has been a proven tactic of success for the NFL owners in the past.  But now there is another mode in the way of doing things...where, while it may cost them a lot more to do private financing, the ultimate return may be vastly higher than even when they have someone else paying for things.  After all, if a city is financing YOUR business facility, they are going to want a big cut in return.  

    And, no, you don't want to conclude that Tour is on to something.  His method is just to be a little cunny and run and hide from any reasonable argument.  You at least stand your ground. 

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    His method is just to be a little cunny and run and hide from any reasonable argument.

    Oh, Gipper...

    You're the only one here who thinks any of your arguments are reasonable.

  • @the-gipper said:

    His method is just to be a little cunny and run and hide from any reasonable argument.

    Oh, Gipper...

    You're the only one here who thinks any of your arguments are reasonable.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @tour2ma said:

    Oh, Gipper...

    You're the only one here who thinks any of your arguments are reasonable.

    Surprised you even saw that comment.  

    Who among us here has won court cases with reasonable arguments?   If you take off your bridal veil of prejudice,  You clearly would see that my arguments are perfectly reasonable on this matter, because, in reality,  from my experience, the best argument is that in which the full force of the facts are on your side.  And the full force of the facts ARE on my side on this:   Many of the NFL owners are going full guns on the mega-development model for their stadiums...they are going fully into wanting largely private/public partnership  funded facilities that can put them into the category as "project developers" as it does "NFL team owners".   And, as I said, where they have not done that, those owners were still far more willing to slurp from the public money trough than their brethren who had more foresight into the future.    

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    Jacksonville Stadium project:

    https://www.constructiondive.com/news/plans-unveiled-for-25b-mixed-use-project-near-jacksonville-nfl-stadium/522755/

    88d7658e881dfd4c6277b20423c82037.jpg

    Could be a model for Cleveland.  Remember the area in the Flats I referenced, just west of Fleet st. along Washington Parkway......take an old industrial site along a river, clean it up, build  a stadium/shopping/hotel/condo complex like this one in JAX. 

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    arlington-texas-cowboy-and-ranger-stadiu

    Dallas.  Tons of surrounding parking (for both stadiums)....tons of hotel/restaurants/commercial surrounding it.

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    Before and after pictures of Patriots stadium area:

    Aerial_8-17-16.jpgConstruction_1400x733.jpg

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    New LA stadium development plans:

    6456abfd6c74ff8a6e33b3a754fd674c.jpg

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    Levi Stadium Development area:   49ers:

    santa-clara-levi-stadium-neighborhood-FE

  • The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    Development under construction around MetLife stadium  NY/NH

    636614832538763047-May-2018-Parks.jpg?wi

  • Development under construction around MetLife stadium  NY/NH

    636614832538763047-May-2018-Parks.jpg?wi

    mjp28M mjp28 wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    Development under construction around MetLife stadium  NY/NH

    636614832538763047-May-2018-Parks.jpg?wi

    Good pics, puts things in perspective.

  • @tour2ma said:

    Oh, Gipper...

    You're the only one here who thinks any of your arguments are reasonable.

    Surprised you even saw that comment.  

    Who among us here has won court cases with reasonable arguments?   If you take off your bridal veil of prejudice,  You clearly would see that my arguments are perfectly reasonable on this matter, because, in reality,  from my experience, the best argument is that in which the full force of the facts are on your side.  And the full force of the facts ARE on my side on this:   Many of the NFL owners are going full guns on the mega-development model for their stadiums...they are going fully into wanting largely private/public partnership  funded facilities that can put them into the category as "project developers" as it does "NFL team owners".   And, as I said, where they have not done that, those owners were still far more willing to slurp from the public money trough than their brethren who had more foresight into the future.    

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    Surprised you even saw that comment.  

    Who among us here has won court cases with reasonable arguments?   If you take off your bridal veil of prejudice,  You clearly would see that my arguments are perfectly reasonable on this matter, because, in reality,  from my experience, the best argument is that in which the full force of the facts are on your side.  And the full force of the facts ARE on my side on this:   Many of the NFL owners are going full guns on the mega-development model for their stadiums...they are going fully into wanting largely private/public partnership  funded facilities that can put them into the category as "project developers" as it does "NFL team owners".   And, as I said, where they have not done that, those owners were still far more willing to slurp from the public money trough than their brethren who had more foresight into the future.    

    I rest my case.

  • arlington-texas-cowboy-and-ranger-stadiu

    Dallas.  Tons of surrounding parking (for both stadiums)....tons of hotel/restaurants/commercial surrounding it.

    Tour2maT Tour2ma wrote on last edited by Tour2ma

    @the-gipper said:

    Dallas.  Tons of surrounding parking (for both stadiums)....tons of hotel/restaurants/commercial surrounding it.

    You're missing a stadium.

    Rangers are building a new, retractable roof home, Globe Life Field.

    image.png.46d7f3fbe6ddaabb6fafb7c62e1fae22.png

  • @the-gipper said:

    Surprised you even saw that comment.  

    Who among us here has won court cases with reasonable arguments?   If you take off your bridal veil of prejudice,  You clearly would see that my arguments are perfectly reasonable on this matter, because, in reality,  from my experience, the best argument is that in which the full force of the facts are on your side.  And the full force of the facts ARE on my side on this:   Many of the NFL owners are going full guns on the mega-development model for their stadiums...they are going fully into wanting largely private/public partnership  funded facilities that can put them into the category as "project developers" as it does "NFL team owners".   And, as I said, where they have not done that, those owners were still far more willing to slurp from the public money trough than their brethren who had more foresight into the future.    

    I rest my case.

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @tour2ma said:

    I rest my case.

    And you lose your case, because:  A. You didn't present any sort of a case to begin with. Snarky drive-by remarks do not a case make. B.  You made no argument on either side of this stadium issue thing.   You clearly have nothing to contribute. You certainly provided nothing to the discussion that Dutch and I were having.  You have to score points to win.  When your point score is exactly -0-....you can't win a thing.   C. Your best option is to simply declare that you are bankrupt with no assets at your disposal. 

  • @the-gipper said:

    Dallas.  Tons of surrounding parking (for both stadiums)....tons of hotel/restaurants/commercial surrounding it.

    You're missing a stadium.

    Rangers are building a new, retractable roof home, Globe Life Field.

    image.png.46d7f3fbe6ddaabb6fafb7c62e1fae22.png

    The GipperT The Gipper wrote on last edited by

    @tour2ma said:

    You're missing a stadium.

    Rangers are building a new, retractable roof home, Globe Life Field.

    image.png.46d7f3fbe6ddaabb6fafb7c62e1fae22.png

    What is that in the upper right hand corner, labeled  "Globe Life Park in Arlington"?  Is that the "old" stadium  (that isn't very old)?  This was the best aerial view I could find that encompassed the entire area. If you have a more recent depiction of what is going on there, by all means, show us. 

  • @tour2ma said:

    Oh, Gipper...

    You're the only one here who thinks any of your arguments are reasonable.

    Surprised you even saw that comment.  

    Who among us here has won court cases with reasonable arguments?   If you take off your bridal veil of prejudice,  You clearly would see that my arguments are perfectly reasonable on this matter, because, in reality,  from my experience, the best argument is that in which the full force of the facts are on your side.  And the full force of the facts ARE on my side on this:   Many of the NFL owners are going full guns on the mega-development model for their stadiums...they are going fully into wanting largely private/public partnership  funded facilities that can put them into the category as "project developers" as it does "NFL team owners".   And, as I said, where they have not done that, those owners were still far more willing to slurp from the public money trough than their brethren who had more foresight into the future.    

    Dutch OvenD Dutch Oven wrote on last edited by

    @the-gipper said:

    Surprised you even saw that comment.  

    Who among us here has won court cases with reasonable arguments?   If you take off your bridal veil of prejudice,  You clearly would see that my arguments are perfectly reasonable on this matter, because, in reality,  from my experience, the best argument is that in which the full force of the facts are on your side.  And the full force of the facts ARE on my side on this:   Many of the NFL owners are going full guns on the mega-development model for their stadiums...they are going fully into wanting largely private/public partnership  funded facilities that can put them into the category as "project developers" as it does "NFL team owners".   And, as I said, where they have not done that, those owners were still far more willing to slurp from the public money trough than their brethren who had more foresight into the future.    

    You: NFL teams demand 300 acres outside the city limits so they can build megaplexes

    Me: Here's a list of NFL teams that have recently built stadiums in their respective downtowns, or just outside their respective downtowns, with nowhere near that much land.

    You: THOSE TEAMS DON'T COUNT!