If the Browns were forever short of money, does anyone know why they didn't:
- Try to jack the Cardinals rent up or at least make a rent formula that included Cards gate receipts
- Try some sort of creative financing deal by which the Cardinals would "rent-to-own" the stadium so that the Browns would have received more cash each year than rent. In that scenario, the Cards would own the stadium in 20-years but hopefully after 20 years the Browns could have replenished their player stock and been competitive enough to pay the Cards rent.
Usually the landlord has an upper hand over a tenant, but for some reason with the Browns, this was not the case. It was ridiculous for them to be selling players every year while the Cardinals were living high on the hog with a modest rent. If the Browns jacked up the rent, what were the Cardinals going to do? Build another stadium and leave all those WS memories to the Browns fans? City real estate was tight, tight, tight. Doubt the Cardinals were going to move to St. Charles in 1935.
Anyway, I've never read anything about what the rent charged even was. All I have read is that the Cards selling their stadium in '20 and renting from the Browns is what saved the Cards franchise. Bully for them. Why wasn't it - as usual - better to be the landlord than the tenant? Mel Brooks said, "it's good to be the king"