PDA

View Full Version : Cleveland Will Ask For Super Bowl L (Will Require Dome Over Stadium)



macro
06-16-2006, 09:38 AM
I don't recall this being discussed, and since there are Browns fans here...

I'm not a Browns fan, but I wouldn't want a dome over the stadium, even if retractable. They're all the rage now, but I think they'll be regarded in the same way as the cookie cutters twenty years from now. I just don't like 'em.


http://www.newsnet5.com/news/9258709/detail.html Cleveland Will Ask For Super Bowl L

Stadium Will Need To Have Retractable Dome Installed

CLEVELAND -- Cleveland City Council members Monday night approved the proposal to request Super Bowl L (50) be held in Cleveland. As part of the deal, the city will install a retractable dome on the Cleveland Browns Stadium.

Approving the proposal to request the Super Bowl is the first step in a rather lengthy process of getting one of the most popular championship games in sports, WEWS reported.

The cost of putting a retractable dome on the Stadium is estimated at $90 million, but the debate remains on how the project will be funded.

The retractable roof would also permit the stadium to be used year-round for functions other than football.

The developer of the project has created a Web site that shows photos of the roof model and has a downloadable petition.

The petition is available at www.superbowlforcleveland.com. (http://www.superbowlforcleveland.com/)

Unassisted
06-16-2006, 12:54 PM
It makes me sad to see so much public money go toward chasing a one-off event.

deltachi8
06-16-2006, 12:57 PM
No offense to those in Cleveland or Detroit or Minnesota, but for me, if i were going to a super bowl, I would want to be headed somewhere warm. Isn't that some of the appeal?

And I agree on the use of public money that Unassisted pointed to.

Chip R
06-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Hello, Cleveland!!! Hello, Cleveland!!!

Roy Tucker
06-16-2006, 01:15 PM
It makes me sad to see so much public money go toward chasing a one-off event.
UA, I think the article did say it would be used for year-round for functions other than football.

I know the RCA Dome over in Indy gets its fair share of boat shows, auto shows, conventions, HS footall playoffs, marching band competitions, and other events. It gets fairly heavily used. The Alamo Dome down your way probably gets a lot of similar events.

Whether or not its a wise move financially, I don't know.

So what's the over/under is for someone saying this is the only way Cleveland will ever be involved in a Super Bowl. :cool:

Heath
06-16-2006, 01:18 PM
UA, I think the article did say it would be used for year-round for functions other than football.

I know the RCA Dome over in Indy gets its fair share of boat shows, auto shows, conventions, HS footall playoffs, marching band competitions, and other events. It gets fairly heavily used. The Alamo Dome down your way probably gets a lot of similar events.

Whether or not its a wise move financially, I don't know.

So what's the over/under is for someone saying this is the only way Cleveland will ever be involved in a Super Bowl. :cool:

I think the Super Bowl in Cleveland would be an absolute coup for the City. Also - They can host the NCAA Final Four and other type of events. I'm afraid as a traditionalist and as a Browns fan, be very disappointed if they went to the synthetic grass. That would be the next step.

The problem is that the city has cut backs in schools and fire department. Building a retractable roof would not be financially prudent at this time.

Unassisted
06-16-2006, 01:32 PM
UA, I think the article did say it would be used for year-round for functions other than football.

I know the RCA Dome over in Indy gets its fair share of boat shows, auto shows, conventions, HS footall playoffs, marching band competitions, and other events. It gets fairly heavily used. The Alamo Dome down your way probably gets a lot of similar events.The Alamodome is way underutilized, with the city opening it up for events like high school football games and commencements that don't even need 10,000 seats, let alone 60,000. Most of the big events (and the resulting profits) go to the AT&T Center, which is owned by the Spurs, while the county owns the parking around it. Since the SBC/AT&T Center opened I'm almost certain that I could count on my 2 hands the average number of events that the Alamodome hosts annually which draw more than 10K. And the Alamo Bowl is the only annual event that comes close to filling it.

I think that has really soured me on public money being used for stadiums. More city officials should hold San Antonio up as a shining example of why not to build stadiums with taxpayer money.

traderumor
06-16-2006, 01:46 PM
Or is it just a case of Cleveland realizing they will never be a part of the Super Bowl on the field, so they'll have to provide the field to see what the big deal is? :evil:

smith288
06-16-2006, 04:49 PM
Good LORD why would anyone want to be in Cleveland in Jan/Feb for the Superbowl...never understood it.

KronoRed
06-16-2006, 04:59 PM
If the bengals ask for a roof and want the county to pay for it they should be run out of town after the rip off job PBS was the first time ;)

dabvu2498
06-16-2006, 05:36 PM
Watch out... any cinders from any Super Bowl related fireworks might set the Cuyahoga ablaze again.

redsfanmia
06-16-2006, 06:08 PM
If the bengals ask for a roof and want the county to pay for it they should be run out of town after the rip off job PBS was the first time ;)


Its a beautiful stadium though, the best I have ever been to. Is the "rip off job" the Bengals did on PBS why the city went cheap on GAB?

Heath
06-16-2006, 06:25 PM
Its a beautiful stadium though, the best I have ever been to. Is the "rip off job" the Bengals did on PBS why the city went cheap on GAB?

IMO, that's a big Yes.

Mike Brown got the county to open to coffers as wide as possible because he threatened to leave. The county knew the Reds aren't going anywhere, so they kissed the Bengals rear and left the Reds the scraps.

KronoRed
06-16-2006, 06:32 PM
Yep, to me it should have been the opposite, used 8 times a year vs 81.

Oh well.

Yachtzee
06-17-2006, 01:37 AM
IMO, that's a big Yes.

Mike Brown got the county to open to coffers as wide as possible because he threatened to leave. The county knew the Reds aren't going anywhere, so they kissed the Bengals rear and left the Reds the scraps.

To be fair, Mike Brown had rejected Baltimore's money in order to give the people of Cincinnati and Hamilton County a shot at keeping the team before he would start talks of moving. He then worked with the city and the county to promote the referendum approving the county sales tax increase to build the stadium, getting Bengals players out into the community to promote their cause. Meanwhile, Marge Schott sat on her duff and refused to cooperate. From what I gather, she was a big jerk about everything and thought the city and county should bend over backwards to accommodate her since Cincinnati was a "baseball town." It was as though she didn't want the referendum to pass, but at the same time, she wanted her piece of the pie if it did. Then, when the tax passed, I seem to recall reading that Marge continued to act as though the city and county had to come to her, whereas Mike Brown immediately began working to get a site selected and a stadium built. In the end, Marge tried to play both sides and lost.

To this day, I feel like Marge secretly wanted the Bengals out of town. I think she then would have then threatened to move the Reds if she didn't get a new stadium herself. I distinctly remember grumblings that the Reds would move to North Carolina or DC if they didn't get a baseball only park, whether it was from that referendum or from one to come later.

Personally, I love GABP and I see few things wrong with it. But if you don't agree and wish to play the blame game, one person I would take a long hard look at is Mrs. Marge Unnewehr Schott.

GAC
06-17-2006, 06:43 AM
(In my Tim the Toolman grunt) Real football is played in foul weather.... Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay, Buffalo.... where warriors, taped to the hilt, meet in the bitter cold, bare bleeding knuckles, head to head collisions, bodies crashing, torsos mangled, adrenaline flowing, stretchers at the ready

AAAAA -AAAAA -AAAAA- AAAA

http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/tim.jpg

I hate domed stadiums... and pansies like Peyton (what kind of name is that for a FB player?) who can't seem to play unless they have a roof over them. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
06-17-2006, 05:42 PM
Good LORD why would anyone want to be in Cleveland in Jan/Feb for the Superbowl...never understood it.

Might have been better for Stanley Wilson... better than Miami anyway! ;)

WVRed
06-17-2006, 09:43 PM
I'm curious, how much would a Super Bowl bring in for a city? Comparing that to the 90 million listed to build a retractable roof, is it worth it?

Yachtzee
06-17-2006, 10:43 PM
I think its a bad idea. The problem is that Cleveland is very poorly situated when it comes to winter weather. The prevailing winds whip right off of Lake Erie to make it bitterly cold in February. You may make it to the game, but you won't want to spend much time hanging around outside afterwards. And lets not forget the lake effect snow. Nothing like holding a Super Bowl when you have 2' of snow dumped on the city. I just don't think a Super Bowl in Cleveland will generate the same revenue that one would if it were someplace warm.

Even with a dome on the stadium, Cleveland just doesn't have the facilities downtown to handle a Super Bowl. They'd need a new convention center downtown to handle the NFL Experience. The one they have downtown is too small and the IX Center, while large enough to handle it, is way out at the airport.

All in all, it's this kind of garbage that bugs me to no end about Cleveland. Here they are worrying about a Super Bowl, when they should be finding a way to attract and develop new business for the city and figure out a way to improve their failing school system.

Unassisted
06-17-2006, 10:57 PM
I'm curious, how much would a Super Bowl bring in for a city? Comparing that to the 90 million listed to build a retractable roof, is it worth it?Politicians there will undoubtedly trot out estimates that will support that notion. But there have been research studies done which prove these estimates are almost always inflated. I would find it impossible to believe that the direct benefit to Cleveland-area residents and its business community from a Super Bowl could top even a double-digit percentage of that figure. Most of the largest businesses that would benefit are based elsewhere.

GAC
06-18-2006, 08:00 AM
The stadium would be used for other various events during the off-season.

Yachtzee
06-18-2006, 11:14 AM
It's nice that they would be able to use it for other events during the off-season, but they already do that to some extent. If they put in field turf, they could do even more things in the early spring. Then, if the Browns ever make the playoffs, the only time CBS would be idle would be February through most of March.

To me, the idea of putting a roof on CBS is like the homeowner who hopes to increase the value of their home by adding on an extra room. Sure it give you more space to do stuff, but the additional value added is never enough to cover the costs it took to add the room on in the first place.

As it is, Cleveland has seen an exodus of business and talent from the area and doesn't seem to be doing much to change it. They have 4 major universities in the area and yet all the top-flight talent graduating from these schools leave town after graduation. They have a serious urban blight problem between downtown and the Cleveland Clinic. Retail spaces like the Galleria of Erieview and Tower City Center have problems keeping tenants. The schools are terrible. Yet they spend their time thinking of dumping more money into CBS. It doesn't make sense.