It’s time for another missive from NEOtrans, the Cleveland blog that first reported that the Browns owners were seeking a new stadium rather than renovations to their existing one way back in June 2022. The blog’s proprietor, railroad expert Ken Prendergast, has a particular propensity for stories with no named sources, and his latest is no exception:
It seems that the clock has run out on city of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County leaders on keeping the stadium downtown for the Cleveland Browns football team’s home games. NEOtrans has learned that the Browns’ owners, the Haslam Sports Group, are due to make an announcement soon, possibly by the end of this month, that they will put all their efforts into building a new covered stadium in suburban Brook Park.
Prendergast gives no indication — not even a “sources close to the team” or anything — who he has learned this from, so there’s no way to tell if this is news or a rumor he heard from someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about or an attempt by somebody to put pressure on Cleveland city officials to up their ante or what. And on top of that, it’s a rumor we’ve heard from him before: Back on August 6, Prendergast wrote, “In the coming weeks, the owners of the Cleveland Browns will reveal their plans to build a $3.6 billion domed stadium and associated development in the Cleveland suburb of Brook Park.”
That was ten weeks ago, so this still qualifies as “coming weeks,” but only barely. The latest post doesn’t provide any new info on Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam’s decision, repeating earlier reports that the stadium would cost $2.4 billion and the Haslams would want $1.2 billion of that in public money.
As for the Haslam’s half, there’s more unsourced reporting on where that could come from:
The Browns appear eager to tap a new source of capital. In August, the National Football League (NFL) owners approved the use of private equity investment as a component of the ownership structure of its teams. Private equity firms could purchase as little as 3 percent or as much as a 10 percent equity stake in a team…
Based on that value, a firm could pay anywhere from $180 million to $600 million to take an equity stake in the Browns. That, perhaps as much as anything, is why the Browns are now focused on Brook Park.
Huh? Sure, the Haslams could sell 10% of their team to private equity to raise half their private share of a stadium cost. But before this they could have likewise sold 10% of their team to a minority owner, or used 10% of their team as collateral for a bank loan, or sold some of their other $4 billion worth of assets, or any of a number of other things. Billionaires don’t generally lack ways to raise cash for a stadium deal — even A’s owner John Fisher has sources of money, if he can figure out how to pay it back — so much as ways to raise cash that don’t cost them more than they’d make on the deal, and giving up 10% of a franchise worth $6 billion according to CNBC ($5.1 billion according to Forbes, the more conventionally used guesstimate) would be a significant cost, especially since the theoretical private equity goons would presumably want a cut of future revenues from the hypothetical future stadium.
This whole “NFL teams can tap private equity money” bit is making the news rounds at the moment — look, here’s Forbes contributer (aka unpaid blogger) Phil Rogers theorizing that it’ll make it easier for the Chicago Bears to raise money for their own $2 billion–plus stadium. But while it does increase the universe of potential investors in NFL teams, it doesn’t change the main calculation: how to get public funding for these buildings, since that wouldn’t have to be paid back out of owners’ pockets.
The public price tag for a Brook Park stadium for the Browns remains $1.2 billion, which the Haslams have previously said would come from “innovative funding mechanisms with local, county, and state officials that would leverage the fiscal impact of the project,” whatever that means. Brook Park doesn’t have any significant money, Cuyahoga County says it’s not interested in paying to help move the Browns out of Cleveland, and there’s been no word lately of Gov. Mike DeWine offering to carry the bulk of the $1.2 billion load — so we’re back at “Haslams want a suburban dome as soon as someone else agrees to pay for it.” They can “announce” that as their first choice if they want, but until someone shows up with a $1.2 billion novelty check, it’s more a wish than an agreement.
don’t give this conman a cent of our public money
Some time ago, I got to know a number of bloggers who wrote about professional football. They had their “ins” with people who worked for the team. They had their “scoops” from time to time that they would share.
As you might expect, a lot of the more salacious items were based on things like someone seeing a memo in the mailroom and they ran with it as fact.
The owners of sports teams have a love of the sport/team and a love of money. And they try and combine the two to the best of their ability.
No one knows what goes on in the boardroom except that person and the one or two people they met with.
While “a source” may reveal something that has a kernel of truth to it, I just assume someone is reading tea leaves.
Sure maybe a lot of money and a dome are on a wishlist. Doesn’t mean that is what the owner actually wants in the moment.
That’s my soapbox for today. :)
Seriously, does anyone believe the Haslams have any interest in renovating the current stadium?
They built (with some public money) a very nice $325 mil new stadium for their soccer club the Columbus Crew (I am season ticket member).
Yes, a 70k $1.2B football stadium is a much higher ask / task than a 20k seat $325M soccer stadium, but I have to believe they want a new stadium, e.g., see Tennessee Titans).
Everybody WANTS a new stadium. I would love a new stadium, even if I would have to find a way to fit it in my hall closet.
The question is whether the Haslams would rather have a new stadium than a renovated one if it didn’t come with a $1.2 billion check.
This is so stupid, and it’s honestly a shame so many cold weather teams seem to think a dome is necessary because they don’t want to be in the cold anymore.
The only thing dumber than an unnecessary dome -though the possibility of hosting a Super Bowl or Final Four is a perk- is an unnecessary dome in the suburbs.
These ideas made sense when the suburbs were brand new and shiny and still being built out along the also mostly new interstates. It does not make sense anymore.
New York and LA can get away with this because they’re New York and LA. Chicago probably can too for the same reason. Or Houston. Or Atlanta.
Cleveland, Buffalo, Cincinnati, etc absolutely cannot make a suburban stadium work. I know Buffalo already has one but it’s incredibly short sighted and stupid to put their new one in the same location because migration trends have been back to the cities for over a decade now.
If Haslam wants a dome then just build it in the same place as the current stadium. It’s not the location that’s the problem, from what I can tell. It’s how pedestrian unfriendly and cut off it is.
I say if he wants a dome, force him to pay for connecting the lakefront land his stadium is on to the downtown somehow. Turn the area around the stadium into something and have more than just a walkway under the overpass connecting it. Obviously he isn’t going to pay to do a Big Dig type of thing but there’s a lot that can probably be done to make it less cut off. That’s something that would actually be worth the public investment.
The main problem with connecting the stadium to the city is the railroad. If they don’t want it then it’s not going to happen.
If everyone has a dome, then there’ll be a lot less chances for those non-football game events to be held by all those facilities. And if you had to choose between the two, would you choose going to a Final Four game in a domed stadium in Cleveland in April or anywhere else? I’ve been to Cleveland in April a lot and I would choose anywhere else.
Detroit has gotten a Final Four and will host its second in 2027.
That’s 2 times in 27 years. New Orleans, Houston, and San Antonio have all hosted it more in that same time period. Vegas will be a regular part of the rotation soon as well, not to mention Indianapolis given it’s in the NCAA’s backyard. Besides Indy, cold weather cities can expect to host the Final Four all of 1-2 times in the life cycle of the stadium. (See the MetroDome and Edward Jones Dome as examples).
I never made the claim that Cleveland would be in the regular Super Bowl or Final Four rotation. Maybe they get one of each. Now I can’t pretend that I can quantify the long-term impact of hosting one-off events. Detroit got over 200K visitors from over 100 miles away for the NFL draft. We have no idea what the long-term impact of that is.
For example, I went to the Auto Show in 2022. It was my first trip there in several years. I was blown away by how far the city has come and I’ve done 3 trips there since. Who knows how many people.
There is no way to tell how many people after a positive expeirence when visiting a city decide to visit more often or wind up considering a job there or doing business there etc
To be fair NEOtrans blog has been pretty accurate getting inside info in advance and not just when it comes to the Browns or other sports teams. From major office developments like Sherwin Williams to suburban hospital expansions they are on top of stuff.
As far as state funding goes I wouldn’t be surprised if there is something behind the scenes (its Ohio afterall) that they fund this and the Bengals deal.
The only fair arrangement, which probably violates NFL rules, is for everyone that buys a PSL to actually be buying shares in the franchise, which then gives the right to vote for the General Manager. Supposedly this exists in Australia.
But that means no billionah welfare
The NEOtrans blogger called it. He has been pretty spot on since he started (or I became aware of) that blog.
https://www.audacy.com/923thefan/sports/cleveland-browns/sources-browns-to-seek-2-4-billion-brook-park-dome
FYI, the Browns’ move to Brook Park was announced yesterday, per The Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5851407/2024/10/17/cleveland-browns-stadium-move/
Nope, the Browns owners just announced that they want somebody to give them $1.2 billion to move to Brook Park. Not quite the same thing.