Talk:Art Modell

The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame...

From my comment on that article's talk page:

An article on the TV show itself may be NPOV. However, after re-writing the article on Art Modell, I should note here that articles based on the show may be POV. The show is on the same order as newspaper editorial, and reflects the opinions of the show's producers.

Someone keeps including the opinions offered in this program as article fact. This is not NPOV. Some of the conclusions the program reaches-- for example, the argument that the city of Cleveland owed Modell a stadium "has merit"-- are blatantly POV (and, to this Clevelander's POV, flat out wrong... but never mind that). As the same words seem to get included each time these "facts" are presented, I also have to wonder if this is a copyright violation, as though the summary appeared verbatim either on the program or in some publication's summary of the program. -- SwissCelt 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland Cavaliers and Art Modell

I'm reprinting this here from my talk page. -- SwissCelt 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is still relevant to the Art Modell page because it was one of the reasons that Cleveland did not have the funds to pay for a football stadium. If you'd like, I can reword it. The Cavs are definitely worth mentioning, as they are a sports team. Check out the Ravens AOL board. The debate is certainly still going on. 144.126.161.43 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the New York Giants be outraged every time a new theater opens on Broadway? Come on, let's get real here. The city of Cleveland did not build the Rock Hall. It's a non-profit institution; which makes it all the more outrageous to think that Cleveland had to build a stadium for Modell's for profit business separate from the Gateway Sports and Entertainment Complex which was already offered to him at the same time it was offered to the Indians and Cavs. (More on that in a moment.) Cleveland did spend money on infrastructure for the Rock Hall, and it's the same infrastructure (e.g. the RTA Waterfront line) which is now benefitting the Browns in their current stadium. Moreover, the experience of the nearby Columbus Blue Jackets makes the whole argument out to be the sham it is: Sports teams can indeed survive, and even thrive, without raiding the public coffers.

As for the Cavs, as I mentioned, they were part of the Gateway project; mentioning them separately in the article is redundant, and suggests more credence to Modell's posturing than actually exists in fact. (To wit, even if you buy the argument that Cleveland snubbed Modell, it did so with only one project, not two or three.) What really happened is this: Modell gambled that the citizens of Cleveland would reject a public project to build new sports venues in Cleveland. This gamble made good business sense for Modell, as he already controlled leases on the existing Cleveland Municipal Stadium. The leases were more valuable even with the lackluster Indians as a tenant than they would have been in a new Browns-only stadium. To hedge his bet, Modell made clear he would not be a part of Gateway, as without the Browns it seemed a sure thing the citizens of Cleveland would reject the project.

Of course, Cleveland passed the project, via a "sin tax" in Cuyahoga County. The Indians would be moving to a new stadium, the Cavs would be moving into Cleveland from neighbouring Summit County, and Modell was left holding the bag. He pressured Cleveland to build him a new stadium as well. But what people don't realize is that not only did Cleveland not have the money for a new Browns stadium, they never did have the money: That money was earmarked through the Gateway project (and passed through a distinct levy by the voters of Cuyahoga County), which Modell had already rejected. And that, my friend, is why you can't blame the city of Cleveland for the Browns' move. If the folks at ESPN would get their heads out of... well, let's just say start thinking clearly, this story could be told instead of the Disney fantasy that is proffered in The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... -- SwissCelt 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

Funny that you censored the content of our discussion. By the way, I will have that source by this Sunday.144.126.161.43 15:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]