Temple economist Michael Leeds just pwned the Browns on their stadium demands, yo

The Cleveland Scene has a long article up today about the Cleveland Brownssaber-rattling for a new stadium, most of which is about what the Browns are probably after in seeking to replace a 19-year-old stadium — a site with lots of land around it to develop, probably — and how likely that is to happen — not too likely, according to the Scene, unless the Browns owners can get Cleveland to decommission an airport, which is hard because the FAA would be involved. It’s an interesting read, but I mostly want to take a moment to appreciate this quote from Temple University economist Michael Leeds, explaining why teams keep upping the ante for what they “need” despite having stadiums that are barely out of the packaging:

“Every parent goes through this type of thing and knows the deal,” he said. “You ask your kid what they want for their birthday, and she might say, ‘I want a pony.’ You ask her why and she says the kid down the street has one. Most of us figure out a way to ignore what she wants and get her something else.”

[mic drop]


13 comments on “Temple economist Michael Leeds just pwned the Browns on their stadium demands, yo

  1. If the Browns think they’re going to get anywhere with respect to a new stadium anytime soon, they are sorely misreading the people of Cleveland. At this point, at the slightest provocation Clevelanders are likely to load the team’s possessions onto a bus and point it toward Baltimore to join the original team, or to London, St. Louis, or wherever the NFL’s claiming it’s itching to go by then.

    Put a consistently winning team together instead of the travesty that’s been on the field the bulk of the past two decades? And then maybe – maybe – they can start talking about upgrading what they already have.

  2. Why does a 19 year old facility need upgrades? Even if it ‘does’, why should the people of Cleveland (or Ohio) pay for them?

    Have I mentioned this week that the Browns are 86-202 this century and 88-216 since being “reborn” (I will leave out the obvious joke there)?

    Seems like Browns ownership should be paying people to watch, and perhaps even paying the city for dragging it’s name and reputation down into the gutter.

    After all, if we pay team owners because of the “world class” status their franchises are alleged to bring to a host city, surely the owners have to return the favour when it is the team that is downgrading the status of the city.

  3. How would they develop any extra land? A ballpark village? BrownTown. Great for the ten home dates every year. And the once a decade playoff game. They should visit Glendale Arizona to see how that works.

    • >And the once a decade playoff game.

      Lets not exaggerate the situation here. Playoffs games are more like once every other decade!

  4. I’m in favor of any proposal that closes that stupid airport. Burke is symbolic of everything wrong with Cleveland.

      • Yeah but that was then. When was the last time they had a race there? 04? You have the air show labor day weekend and that’s it. Other than the Cleveland Clinic most of the takeoffs and landings there are flight schools. Hopkins and County Airport in Richmond Heights can easily absorb anything that gets displaced. The mayor has no vision otherwise he would have started the process of closing the stupid thing or done what Chicago did and tear it up in the middle of the night.

  5. How can you get the people of Cleveland to buy you a new backyard when you can’t even motivate them enough to attend the Factory of Sadness you have now? You would have a better probability of shaking down the public to get them to subsidize a decent team.

    • Nah, the anthem isn’t important. It’s a stupid song written by a slaveowner about a war in which the U.S. got its impotent asses kicked.

      The winning a few games would be nice though

  6. I don’t know how Mr. DeMause can keep his sense of humor writing about this bullpoo… but I sincerely appreciate it.

  7. The “FAA would be involved” or as the article put it “what that means is that a city cannot just decide to close an airport” seems pretty false.

    Burke Lakefront Airport is in almost all ways identical to Meigs Field in Chicago. Both are/were city-owned airports on lakefront land owned by their respective cities that serve mostly private planes with no commercial flights. Notice “are/were” in that sentence. That’s because after a long period of debate and no resolution as to what to do with Meigs Field, the Honorable Mr. Richard M. Daley brought in bulldozers in the middle of the night and tore up the runway and then asked “ok FAA whatyagonnadoboutit.” He did it despite their were still planes at Meigs at the the time that then had no way to take back off (the FAA had to pass a special rule allowing takeoffs from taxiways…yes, seriously).

    In short, this is less of an obstacle than one might think.