Cleveland Browns propose new stadium with 50% from taxpayers.
Maywood
Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here we go with the old scam again, build a new sports facility for billionaire owners and get the taxpayers to cover all or part of the cost. That's the proposal by the Cleveland Browns: read, the Haslams. They have proposed a $1billion renovation to the existing 25 year old facility or a new $2.4 billion domed stadium to open in 2029. Either way the taxpayers are asked to pony up 50% of the cost. Never mind that the cost for the current Browns Stadium, where they play right now, has taxpayers on the hook for over $350 million and counting.
My initial thought is that if that stupid owner hadn't squandered $250 million on the Deshaun Watson deal he wouldn't be strapped for cash, right?? I think an alternative is for the public to pay for the stadium --- BUT --- also have a say in contract negotiations!! I'm sure Jimmy Haslam wouldn't like that.
So what do you think, are you tired like me of the public being roped in for the cost of these sports facilities?? Why should a business owner who almost has a license to print money have the help of the public to build him a nice, new expensive home for his team like this??
People are fools to agree, but I just know they will and the end result will be some sort of a tax added to me. Thanks but no thanks.
Maywood.
Comments
The frustrating truth is that taxes paid by the taxpayers handed out by government many times end up in the pockets of millionaires and billionaires across the planet.
Many people feast at the public trough.
Makes you angry thinking about how things get done by elites
Those things are true, the rich suck money away from the public and it seems clear how it's done, yet people continue to go against common sense and their own best interests. Fans get blackmailed(read: extortion) into believing that if they don't support these so-called "sin tax" issues that a team will move. I've seen it done multiple times. And my gut instinct tells me that locals will get suckered into supporting renovation of the current facility. I would expect the drum-beating to start soon, followed by a tax levy on the ballot in November of 2025.
The saving grace in all of this is that when the City of Cleveland negotiated with the NFL to retain things such as the team name, colors and records after Art "take the knife outa my back" Modell absconded the team in the 1990's, they also inserted a stipulation that the owners of the new franchise couldn't move the team out of Cleveland. The proposed new stadium location is nearby, but in the City of Brookpark!!! OOPS, didn't see that coming did you Jimmy??
I suppose that government officials will try to get around that but I can't see it happening.
The funny part of this for me is that I live outside of the City and have never been to the current stadium for anything, but they still want my tax money.
The economic impact on the surrounding area from a new stadium, or even the introduction of a new team to a city is minimal relative to the capital outlay.
There are just a lot of cities that would love to have a sports team, and those cities would be willing to fund a stadium. As long as cities are willing to take on a load of bond debt this isn't going to change. In general these stadiums are funded by tourism taxes; sales tax, ticket/entertainment tax, which are the least controversial.
But. While stadium deals are not a very good deal for states and municipalities, they are good for home prices. So there's a silver lining I suppose.
so stupid. if the browns want a new stadium, THEY should purchase it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What Can Brown Do For You. What can you do for the Browns
Why do they need ANOTHER new stadium? So ridiculous.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
They saw what the Bills are getting.
They saw what the Bills are getting.
This is a trend that goes back further than the recent events of Buffalo and their new stadium. It pre-dates what took place in Cleveland, which I'm most familiar with, during the late 1980's and into the 1990's when Art Modell tried to hold the city hostage and eventually moved to Baltimore.
@JoeBanzai can probably speak to the old MetroDome, but I believe that was paid for by tax dollars and I think the Pontiac SilverDome was, also. Once the idea took hold it's been used as a wedge by not only team owners but the NFL to strong arm cities into building newer and nicer facilities. Lately, they don't seem to last more than 30 years before being replaced.
Its getting less and less popular by voters to give multibillionaires free or even discounted stadiums especially since all it does is increase costs for fans and their profits. Vegas has been trying to push back against the As, Browns, Bears, Chiefs and Bengals are also also facing notable resistance to tax payer funded stadiums.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
So, will the hard-working tax paying fans there get 50% off tickets, food, etc? Didn't think so. Only a fool would vote yes to this.
I think the idea is to raise prices to keep the hard-working fans away. Gentrify the Browns!
Just saw the owner of the Miami Dolphins rejected a $10 billion purchase offer!!
I haven't kept up with the Browns and the whole stadium thing. While I agree with Maywood, seems some other options can be considered if the owner expects that kind of $$ for a stadium - maybe the City of Cleveland should get an ownership interest with voting rights to keep the franchise in Cleveland.
Imagine how entertaining this thread would be if Keets were here?
Keets should be reinstated if for no other reason than to write what I wrote is a stupid idea.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
It was more than just the franchise, he would have taken that in a second if it was just the Dolphins. It was an F1 race and the stadium as well. But yea the Dolphins would bring in at least 5 billion on their own and probably closer to 6 or 7
Owning a major pro sports team is basically just free money for owners
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
@coinkat said: maybe the City of Cleveland should get an ownership interest with voting rights to keep the franchise in Cleveland.
That's the sticking point that owner Haslam faces, he can't move the franchise from Cleveland according to the agreement hammered out between the City of Cleveland and the NFL. Not sure how legally binding it is and what would happen in a court fight if Haslam challenged it, but that would probably drag on for years. The current chosen sight(s) is in Brookpark and I have also heard Berea, about 20 minutes from downtown.
good luck with the tax collector Maywood...
Have you considered adopting a Pitbull?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The Minnesota Vikings paid off U.S. Bank Stadium TWENTY-THREE YEARS earlier than expected, which saved MN taxpayers $200 million in interest.
Finding a solution to these "problems" are quite easy if you start from the mindset of "how can we do this" as opposed to the opposite. There's a plethora of ways to solve for building these stadiums.
There are ways to make it a win-win for everyone involved.
If you don't, your city can be more like Omaha, Nebraska.
Erik
Strangely enough the Vikings don’t own US Bank Stadium. Fun fact.
Covid was a boom for Minnesota. Silver lining that there was over a billion without purpose in that general fund. Not a common occurrence but whatever.
I totally agree with Maywood. And what is wrong with Omaha?
Tax Payers subsidize sports facilities only leads to larger player salaries. My business didn’t get a building built for me.
Martin
That’s a shame Martin. Any idea why your proposal didn’t get off the ground?
Well in hindsight I didn’t ask.
Martin
Omaha is amazing for the week or two that the college world series is there. I think it might have been a reference to the fact that they built a stadium trying to get a minor league baseball team and it never happened. Outside of the college world series theres minimal attendance at best at the stadium for baseball games. The B!G just doesnt care much about baseball and Omaha isnt a big program that uses it as their home field.
San Antonio did the same thing building the Alamodome trying to get an NFL team which failed
In theory that should be true, but really it just leads to bigger profits for owners and a higher cost for fans.
Plus you have teams demanding new stadiums every 20 years or upgrades every 5 to 10 years or they threaten to leave. The only way to make them invested in the stadium and the city is to make them pay for it
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Decades of economic data show that every single time taxpayers fund any portion of a new sports building, it is a bad deal for the taxpayers and a boon for the owner(s). Every single time the economic benefits are purported to more than offset the cost, that the surrounding areas will see benefit, more jobs, etc. etc.
It is all hogwash.
I do not have time for ignorant trolls.
ignore list: 1948_Swell_Robinson, Darin, bgr, bronco2078, dallasactuary
I think this is the definitive book on the subject.
Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums
While what some say about how the profit only goes to the owners isn't true, it is more true than it isn't. Not all of the profit goes to the owners, but the majority does. The direct economic impact on local communities in the size of city that can support 1 or more professional sports teams is around 1%. There was a study in Chicago which calculated the economic impact of losing the Cubs, Sox, Bears, Blackhawks, and Bulls to be around that 1% of revenue.
That 1% might seem like nothing, but it's probably in the range of $200MM - $400MM annually. The joke is that a Super Walmart brings more revenue to a city, which is kind of true, but it's not precisely the same as the type of revenue is different. Sporting events generate a large amount of tax revenue based on liquor sales.
In case anyone has forgotten... Federal and State governments were very much against income taxes and the primary source of revenue for government was from taxation on the sale of liquor. With the brilliant 18th amendment we lost that revenue, started taxing income, and the rest is history.
So. If you're just looking at the revenue it generates, vs. the cost to the state, and indirectly, taxpayers -- via sales, ticket, luxury taxation... it's actually not a bad deal.
What makes it a bad deal is... the opportunity cost of those same dollars. Extra money that isn't saved, is spent. So it doesn't create much in the way of economic activity that doesn't already exist. What it can do is "promote" a city to a "tier 1 city" which makes the city more attractive for business and commerce, which does add to the local economy.
I think it's closer to 40 good / 60 bad.
Their proposed stadium site doesn't really have the road system to accommodate the high traffic volume even on a Sunday . Who cares, right?
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
and mnf plus tnf
Been to Lambeau?
First, the Vikings contributed $477 million, the state $348 million, and $150 million via Minneapolis hospitality tax to buiild U.S. Bank Stadium. The Vikings have a mechanism to enjoy revenue from their events (details hard to find).
Second, the stadium is technically owned and run by the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority - a section of the government - which was also managed/owned the Metrodome.
Third, my point was to convey that the government and an NFL team can come together to build and finance a stadium that has multiple purposes. The Vikings are a blue print for Cleveland to consider. They also were able to save over $200 million of interest by paying it off early. It's considered a resounding success.
Last, I don't understand the flippant, rude tone of your response.
Erik
I was not intending to be flippant and/or rude.
I agree with you that us bank stadium was a good allocation of costs.
I disagree that this model, as it unfolded, could be leveraged as a recipe to produce a similar outcome. It was good timing for Mn.
I was also trying to respond twice in the same response.
It’s rare when a tax dollar paid returns to the tax payer. Assuming it’s owed that is.
If you look at this as a business decision it’s terrible business for tax payers. If we could deduct both state and local income as well as sales tax together then this would be much more fair for taxpayers. Only those with low incomes would be affected.
Personally I’m glad to have the stadium. Makes the city more desirable. I don’t want to ruin your Mother’s Day either but they’re talking about a big renovation. There’s also the $280 million they need for maintenance over the next 10 years. Looks like we will be “saving taxpayers” for years to come.
I’m sorry. It’s just not good for taxpayers. I want it to be though as much as anyone. Believe me.
Here’s a fun one about us bank stadium I doubt many people know about.
The state spent about $300k studying the migratory routes of birds and the reflectivity of different types of panels for the stadium. The report was conclusive.
The state then decided to approve the opposite. Highly reflective glass.
Now it’s a problem and they have to fix it. So they spent another $500k (admittedly as part of a larger survey of the stadium) to confirm that. When this is addressed tax payers should have more opportunity to save.
Thanks for the responses. Comparative to most other decisions being made in Minneapolis or Minnesota, the stadium is successful. Yes, Minnesota pays higher taxes and there's a cost for ongoing maintenance. Yes, they should have done more from keeping birds from unexpectedly flying into the building.
Minnesota has lost the Lakers due to a poor facility, the North Stars left due to an outdated facility, the Twins were threatened to move or be contracted by MLB commissioner due to where they played, and the Vikings have had an owner in Red McCombs that wanted to move them to San Antonio and removed Vikings from the season tix - to be replaced with "Purple Pride". Next up, the Timberwolves will want a new basketball arena and I'm sure that will create more drama after they settle who owns the team.
My takeaway from all of it is that: (a) If taxpayers pay for it, they should own it, not the owners (b) the owners should help pay for some of it & enjoy some of the upside or downside (c) stadiums fall into what I call arts & entertainment. if you're going to fund museums, parks, music/acting venues, then you can fund sports stadiums. (d) these franchises are part of the culture & attract people and businesses (e) the right leadership in mindset on how can you figure it out is neeed
Last, the legalization of sports betting seems like a no-brainer for funding stadiums.
Last - last, I'm not following the details of what is going on in Cleveland, other than MN seems like a blueprint to help them in how to do something.
Erik
who pays for demolition?
A lot of times theyy just sit and rot for years if not decades or sporadically used for concerts and events. RFK is still in DC and the last team to play there was the soccer team in 2017, the Astrodome is still around, The old Padres and Chargers stadium is still there. The ones that arent left to rot sometimes get big money renovations and others like the former Lions stadium get sold for pennies on the dollar. The old Lions stadium sold a could years ago for less than 600k to a developer before being demolished.
Theyre bad investments for the tax payers that eat the cost of them while prices at the stadiums just keep rising and owners just keep getting richer wanting a new one every 20 to 30 years
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
To the point @estang made about Minnesota. Minneapolis has done an excellent job of getting multi-functional use out of their 3 major sports stadiums; Target Center, Xcel Energy Center, and US Bank Stadium. While the X is in St. Paul... which is where dreams go to die (joking)... the others are in prime areas in downtown Minneapolis. With the light rail extensions it's super easy to get to them now but it wasn't always that way. I mentioned Lambeau earlier and I found that easier to get to than any of the stadiums here on a game day (before the light rail).
Also.. anyone know what the 'Twin Cities' refers to?
They can be successful for cities and I get why they do it, but that doesnt change that its a bad investment for the tax payers/voters who eat the cost with higher taxes and get none of the revenue back. A lot of the times the teams even get major tax credits/lower rates as well. The stadium prices arent going to be any cheaper because tax payer money was used to build it, but the owner will be a lot richer and the tax payer will be paying more.
Most relocation threats of if you dont give us a new one we will move are bluffs anyways. Look at how long MLB has been trying with Tampa, they want a team there. Teams in all leagues wanted out of Oakland, and the Chargers got moved because no matter what Spanos wanted to be in LA and there was pretty much nothing SD could have done. Theres only so many places that the teams can go and most of those are close to at least another team that would block the move
Not to mention that new stadiums mean higher prices in the stadiums so even from a fan perspective youre voting to pay to build something on a team that is going to raise prices on you
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I guess I will reiterate that it's never a good deal for tax-payers? I'm not disputing that. But do you know what 'Twin Cities' refers to? This one might not be easy to google.
Should be easy enough to google what you think my answer is if you think thats the only way I know things
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I wasn’t trying to be disparaging. I found it to be an interesting fact when I learned it recently. I always had assumed the obvious. This isn’t a quiz or anything.
What I mean is it’s hard to find the right answer even using Google. Someone told me about this at a dinner and about the Minnesota historical society article and when I tried to find the article online I had trouble. But I’m sure the suspense is killing everyone so…
https://discoverthecities.com/why-minneapolis-called-twin-cities-history/
This place can get extra extra sometimes
I live in St Louis, where St Paul is known best as a Sandwich.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)