Skip to content

Browns want taxpayers to give them a deal on parking

BrownsStadiumAP AP

The Browns have said the lockout won’t cause them to cut the salaries of their employees. But the lockout is causing the Browns to ask the county for a deal on parking spaces the team has leased.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Browns want taxpayers to cut them a break on thousands of parking spaces leased from the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, saying the lockout could result in games being canceled and the spaces being unused on game days.

Port Authority Board member Richard Knoth, however, said that if the Browns can’t use the spaces they’ve leased, that’s the Browns’ problem.

“It’s setting a bad precedent, pro-rating and discounting parking rates because they’re not doing so well,” Knoth said.

The seven-member Port Authority Board deadlocked 3-3 with one member absent on the vote, which means the issue will come up again at its next meeting, on July 20.

At least, the current plan is to address the issue at the next meeting. We’d like to think there’s a possibility that the lockout will be over by the next meeting, and the Browns’ request will be moot.

Permalink 39 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cleveland Browns, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
39 Responses to “Browns want taxpayers to give them a deal on parking”
  1. readimgram1 says: May 19, 2011 9:37 AM

    How is the lockout going to be over? Is there even a chance? The sides are throwing barbs and the players hate the deal so much they refuse to even offer a counter.

    This June 3rd hearing will take at LEAST 3-4 weeks to get a decision but it has already been implied that the players will lose.

    They seem to not care and still refuse to negotiate.

    I do not see a light at the end of this tunnel. I wish I did but until the players at least TRY to work on a deal from the framework delivered by the NFL we are stuck.

    I am confounded by their lack of counter offer. Heck they could even counter with a deal that looks alot like the last CBA. Then the two sides could negotiate individual points till they come to an agreement.

    If the players side continues to prefer to sue the NFL as opposed to work out a deal then this is going to last a LONG TIME! The courts will not keep giving them expedited hearings and decisions forever.

    I am getting very scared that there will be no 2011 season.

  2. carson9 says: May 19, 2011 9:38 AM

    I agree with Knoth. If I asked my bank to cut my mortgage in half this month because I chose not to work for the whole month, they would probably give me the finger…

  3. thetooloftools says: May 19, 2011 9:40 AM

    The way our Browns have been playing there won’t be anyone showing up for games anyway pretty soon. Holmgren didn’t do crap in Seattle as a GM and he won’t do it here either as top boss.

  4. shackdelrio says: May 19, 2011 9:42 AM

    So they are saying the parking lots will be as crowded as the Browns Super Bowl trophy case?

  5. coonsqualler says: May 19, 2011 9:43 AM

    How’s about somebody cutting the ticket holder a break on parking??? Fees are getting to be as much as the tickets to the games!!!

  6. duanethomas says: May 19, 2011 9:44 AM

    Tough cookies.

  7. vdaigglesfan says: May 19, 2011 9:47 AM

    Maybe all the pro-owner fans want to use these spaces and show up to watch the owners own.

  8. CKL says: May 19, 2011 9:47 AM

    It’s freaking STUPID to take a stadium with ample parking and a capacity of about 80K IIRC and dump it for a SMALLER stadium with NO parking lot actually AT the stadium. Anyplace you can find to park there (and that is including places where you are not sure whether when you return to them, your car will still be there)is a hike AND $$$$$$$. Because of the winter weather in NE OH and the crime factor of the downtown, I would think some fans would much rather pay a few dollars more for a secure lot AT the stadium than pay $10 less to have to walk through blizzards and high winds in Dec.
    Dopey.

  9. blizzard01 says: May 19, 2011 9:50 AM

    I don’t even open the sports section of the paper anymore. Too many stories like this one. Sports used to be fun.

  10. p4ever says: May 19, 2011 9:59 AM

    Well, play football and you will not need a deal. The thousands of owners’ shills who spam this site should explain to them that since it’s a employer-employee dynamic, the owners should bare the risks of doing business.

  11. keepitsimplestoopid says: May 19, 2011 10:08 AM

    Well shoot. If Art were still there it’s probably be 7-0 against.

    I hope ALL NFL communities apply pressure to the owners to get them to the table.

    I figure if they took public money to build a stadium they have an obligation to play football.

  12. myeaglescantwin says: May 19, 2011 10:11 AM

    i really do think its funny how the owners want a BAILOUT of the situation they have created.

    its just the mentality of the upper class.. “we made mistakes, but HEY, i dont wanna take responsibilities for our actions.. Lets have the working class bail us out of this..”

    They created this mess hahahah deal with it.

    Like i said ,, the owners will hurt more than the players.. its already showing.

    stay strong

  13. gtfan says: May 19, 2011 10:16 AM

    vdaigglesfan, GREAT comment!

  14. jw731 says: May 19, 2011 10:18 AM

    One absent vote huh. What a coincidence, as with any Port Authority, corruption is rampant, if the next vote comes in favor of the Browns 4-3, watch as an immediate relative of the Port Authority member, suddenly lands a lucrative, do nothing 6 figure job….

  15. clintonportisheadd says: May 19, 2011 10:18 AM

    Thats funny.

    The BROWNS cancelled the games. The BROWNS instituted the lockout. The BROWNS fought the Judge who lifted the lockout so the games could be played.

    And now they want a break on parking? Thats like shooting both your parents and asking the court for leniency because you recently became an orphan.

    In the words of Judge Smails, the BROWNS will get nothing and like it.

  16. moochzilla says: May 19, 2011 10:20 AM

    The owners care about you?

    Sure they do.

    Sure they do.

    Does this “make the game better”?

  17. citizenstrange says: May 19, 2011 10:20 AM

    And when the city does reduce their parking lease the Browns should yell “SUCKER!” and take a page out of Jerry Jones’ book and have bowling tournaments and dog racing and all kinds of crazy stuff in those parking lots and then if and when the season does start turn them into Party Pass areas and charge $200 a head.

    It’s what the fans want.

  18. quizguy66 says: May 19, 2011 10:24 AM

    Ludicrous. They should tell the Browns to get some events to fill the stadium on those days so the lots are full.

    -QG

  19. texline1 says: May 19, 2011 10:27 AM

    We all know who is going to win. The man with the most money wins at EVERYTHING.

  20. bigtrav425 says: May 19, 2011 10:31 AM

    Interesting i havnt seen 1 comment regarding that if the Port Authority does not help them out..that there is a pretty good chance people get laid off eventually.and if you live in Cleveland like i am you know that there is entirely to many people already w/o a job…SO how abut the Port cuts them a break for now and make it up with some payments later on in the yr to save jobs

  21. readimgram1 says: May 19, 2011 10:35 AM

    Quote
    —————————
    I hope ALL NFL communities apply pressure to the owners to get them to the table.
    —————————

    Last time I checked the owners were at the table and made an offer, if anyone needs pressure it is the players who need to respond with a counter offer and/or negotiations on the points of the NFLs offer.

    Saying NO NO NO NO to everything does not count as negotiating.

  22. mightygiants says: May 19, 2011 10:41 AM

    So Billionaire Randy Lerner wants the tax payers to pay for HIS lockout. Sadly the billionaires always think the peasants should be the only ones to sacrifice to make in their efforts to gather even more wealth.

  23. goombar2 says: May 19, 2011 10:42 AM

    So much for the employee driven drivel on this site…

    Where are all those comments about the owners taking on risk? First these guys CHOOSE to not have football, then they FIGHT IN COURT to not play football, and now that they’re gonna lose money they come to government for a BAILOUT!!!

    Wow, simply wow!

  24. snowpea84 says: May 19, 2011 10:44 AM

    It’s not rocket science. Either they get a deala nd it comes out of tax dollars, oor the increase in prices goes directly to the consumer. Which, is fine in a sense. However, if that keeps more people away from the games, it will snowball into other unintended consequences from the lack of profits for the Browns. If you can’t be profitbal in an area…go to LA.

  25. blantoncollier says: May 19, 2011 10:52 AM

    Just wondering if any of the commentors above even read the Cleveland.com article?

    The Browns 30 year lease has expired. The Landlord, the government authority, is reducing the number of parking spaces in the parking lot by 1150 spaces. Yet they want the same amount of money as in the past.

    The CFO of the Landlord states at the end of the article, “its a shrinking pot… but our share of the revenues is increasing.”

    The real issue is not about a rent reduction which is fair, its about some political hack on the board of the government agency being angry because he wasnt told in advance of the Browns desire to improve the area around the Stadium.

    Before all of the posters on this site bang their key boards, it would be nice if they took the time to read the material.

  26. mightymightylafootball says: May 19, 2011 10:55 AM

    (Troll Control: Im not paid by the league or the union to post comments. Please stop w/ the conspirecy theories)

    I’m generally pro-owner on the whole lockout issue (although there is plenty of blame to spread around). The reason I’m pro-owner is that I believe that an NFL team is a business *simular* to many others, and that a business should be able to negotiate whatever agreements it likes.

    But it goes both ways. A business is obligated to pay for what it agreed to. If the Browns signed a deal to lease parking, then they have to pay. A deal = a deal, just like no deal = no deal.

  27. krow101 says: May 19, 2011 10:59 AM

    Yeah, cut them a deal so that the lockout doesn’t hurt as much… and they can make it last longer.

    This is an intelligence test for the people of Cleveland.

  28. buckmelanoma says: May 19, 2011 11:03 AM

    Aw gee whiz …. another proud capitalist looking to make his way with a “socialist” handout?

    Amazing how many of these success stories have been built on the backs of the same people that they look to screw over when things get a little tougher.

    Cry me a river.

  29. tashkalucy says: May 19, 2011 11:05 AM

    The country is falling apart.

    43% of American households didn’t pay any tax in 2010. 41% of the revenue collected in 2010 went to pay interest on the debt. The US dollar is sinking by the day and inflation — starting with gas/oil — is ramping up.

    So what do we do? We have to give a tax break to a pro football team because they locked out their employees and don’t have a product to sell.

    Does anyone in this country take responsibility for their actions anymore?

  30. kyleortonsarm says: May 19, 2011 11:14 AM

    I think the taxpayers one to see a title before they give any more money over.

  31. moochzilla says: May 19, 2011 11:19 AM

    American Capitalism…

    Guarantee their profits, cover their losses with taxpayer funds.

    Yep, right out of the commie playbook.

  32. dontouchmyjunk says: May 19, 2011 11:40 AM

    Corporate welfare like this is why fans who support billionaire owners should reexamine their position.

    The greedy little rich kids of the NFL have been sucking on the government teet for decades. It has to stop!

  33. CKL says: May 19, 2011 11:51 AM

    moochzilla says: May 19, 2011 10:20 AM

    The owners care about you?

    Sure they do.

    Sure they do.

    Does this “make the game better”?
    _______________________________
    I can’t speak for everyone who are more on ownership side, (and I think each side has things they are right and wrong on) but…I also don’t think that people who favor the owners believe most owners care about fans nor do they favor their side because they like the owners personally. There’s flotsam & jetsam on the owners and players side. There are also good people with integrity on both sides. I don’t think the players as a whole care about the fans either though. I just try to look at the issues and what I think seems fair.

  34. Land Snark says: May 19, 2011 12:02 PM

    Nice to see the braniacs are in full force here. The Browns franchise did not act alone in locking out the players nor in opting out of the CBA.

    There are 31 other teams who have to agree to a new deal before football can resume.

    Is it really that ridiculous to figure that they shouldn’t be charged rent for space they will most likely not be able to use? Seriously?

    Sure they could schedule events to fill those dates, but it’s not like they just call up some performer and say, “Hey, since there’s no football why don’t you hold a concert here?” Those type of events take time.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not Pro-Owner in the least. I think both sides need to wake up and smell what they’re shoveling before they turn people off to the sport just like baseball did for me back in the 80′s and 90′s with their labor unrest.

  35. quizguy66 says: May 19, 2011 12:33 PM

    I’m curious what the deal is with the 3 commission members who voted to give the Browns the break on the fees. What’s up with that?

    -QG

  36. litterofcola says: May 19, 2011 1:29 PM

    I love football but everything has become about the dollar, just play already!!

  37. bingocostello says: May 19, 2011 1:59 PM

    will that come from the 18% of the population of Cleveland that ACTUALLY works?

  38. tashkalucy says: May 19, 2011 4:07 PM

    Nice to see the braniacs are in full force here. The Browns franchise did not act alone in locking out the players nor in opting out of the CBA.

    There are 31 other teams who have to agree to a new deal before football can resume.

    Is it really that ridiculous to figure that they shouldn’t be charged rent for space they will most likely not be able to use? Seriously?
    _____________

    As dumb a comment as I’ve seen.

    When the owners locked out the players they knew they had these commitments.

    This is like having a lease on a dwelling, going to live somewhere else, and telling the landlord you need not be responsible for the rent because you no longer live there.

    This country has failed in educating it’s citizens with a modicum of common sense.

  39. ernestbynershands says: May 19, 2011 4:15 PM

    Did the Browns lower ticket prices?
    Did the Browns lift tv blackouts when games didn’t sell out?
    How about a rebate in all my Browns gear? since they suck.
    Randy Lerner signed the lease, agreed to a lockout and now wants a depressed, cash strapped community which has been gutted of it’s educational system and manufacturing base to help the team make ends meet?
    Ask Lerner who paid for Browns Stadium to be built. Hint: taxpayers…
    NFL will soon stand for No Fans Left.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!