The Haslams have declined to release renderings of their original proposal to renovate the lakefront stadium. Why? Probably because they regret proposing it.
You must have an active subscription to read this story.
Click Here to subscribe Now!
Editor's note: Tony Grossi is a Cleveland Browns analyst for TheLandOnDemand.com and 850 ESPN Cleveland. He has covered the Browns since 1984.
Football is a game of constant second-guessing. Decisions by GMs and coaches routinely are scrutinized after they go wrong. Same with owners, too.
So as the high-stakes stadium game being played out by the Haslam Sports Group meets more opposition by politicians, I’m going to throw out a classic second guess.
The Haslams should never have offered a massive renovation of the lakefront stadium as a viable option.
They should have campaigned from the start for a domed – or roofed -- stadium in Brook Park.
The inaccessible lakefront stadium location forces fans to tailgate a mile away and causes head-exploding gridlock on the auto-unfriendly streets of downtown Cleveland two hours before kickoff.
Dumping $1.2 billion into the rushed-job, 25-year-old structure would dramatically beautify it, but would not improve accessibility or add convenient parking. Also, it would not transform an open-air stadium on a lake in the Midwest into a viable host for other events year-round.
It would merely be a more-expensive white elephant, relegated to hosting football games, a summer concert or two, upscale wine-tastings, tractor pulls and an occasional summer wedding.
Cleveland fans not fortunate to visit stadiums in other cities have no idea how bad they’ve had it for, oh, 74 years.
Further, there are serious questions of how much longer even a magnificently renovated structure could survive the brutal Lake Erie winter beatings. Another 30 years? Experts doubt it without even more significant investment not too far down the road.
But because the Haslams’ proposed lakefront stadium renovation comes at a price tag roughly one-half the cost of the Brook Park dome stadium project -- about $1.2 billion – it is less burdensome on the public and, thus, more palatable to politicians.
Should have never been presented as an option. Smh.
The proposed dome stadium project in Brook Park has a $2.4 billion price tag. The public portion in a Haslam-preferred 50-50 split would be $1.2 billion. Another $1.1 billion in surrounding development would be privately financed.
Such a humungous investment by all parties would provide Northeast Ohio with a venue that would transform the region and make it a player in hosting major events that are exclusive in the Midwest only to indoor stadiums in Detroit, Indianapolis and Milwaukee.
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb has said no to the dome. And now Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne and Cuyahoga County Council President Pernel Jones Jr. have joined him.
On Sunday, the County executives released a letter sent to the Haslams firmly opposing the Brook Park option.
“The proposal to build a new stadium in Brook Park does not make fiscal sense for Cuyahoga County residents and taxpayers,” they say in the letter. “We believe it is our responsibility and in the best interest of our community to prioritize investment in existing public assets.”
The Haslams scored a PR home run in releasing glitzy renderings of the Brook Park project last week.
They coyly have refrained from releasing equally glitzy renderings of their lakefront stadium proposal. Why? Probably because pro-lakefront advocates would say: “This looks great. Why move?”
On Sunday, the Haslams responded to the letter sent by the County executives:
"A stadium project that could be a transformational opportunity for this region will take deep thought, objectivity, innovation, and patience. The process of renovating or building a new stadium is incredibly complex. We have been reminded many times that the issues with the current stadium resulted from a rushed process that was not thorough and don’t want that repeated.
“We have received the county’s response and are still in the process of gathering information and doing diligence on both paths. It would be short-sighted for Northeast Ohio to rule out any options at this point for a long-term decision of this magnitude.
“We look forward to the City of Cleveland’s responses to our detailed questions regarding their proposal from last week and we remain committed to collaborating and communicating with all parties involved. Working together and keeping an open mind while thoroughly vetting this project is critical to achieving the goal of finding and executing the best long-term, sustainable stadium solution for this region.”
Now what?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Haslams rescind their proposal to massively renovate the lakefront stadium and offer a much-trimmed, lipstick-on-a-pig investment with a minimal lease extension beyond 2028 as an alternative.
In other words, a deal that wouldn’t possibly be accepted.
The Haslams put themselves in a corner by proposing to stay on the lakefront. The only way out is by upping the ante of the Brook Park project and forking over more than a 50 percent investment.
It’s the cost of doing business, Jimmy. You know that.
Browns trade: The loss of backup center Luke Wypler, who fractured an ankle in Saturday’s preseason loss to Green Bay and needs surgery, led the Browns to trade for a former draft pick. They re-acquired center Nick Harris, the team’s fifth-round draft choice in 2020, from Seattle on Sunday. The Browns gave up a sixth-round pick in 2026 for Harris and Seattle’s seventh-round pick in 2026.