Renderings of the Haslams' proposed covered stadium in Brook Park helped to sway public opinion to moving the Browns out of downtown Cleveland. (Cleveland Browns)
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.
The owners of the Browns have made the inevitable official.
They intend to build a covered stadium in Brook Park as the team’s future home and have removed a renovation of the lakefront stadium as an option.
The news was broken by Mayor Justin Bibb, who rushed to upstage the Cleveland Guardians Game 3 playoff game against the New York Yankees in Progressive Field to state his frustration and “profound disappointment” with Dee and Jimmy Haslam at a news conference at City Hall on Thursday.
“I am deeply disappointed that, despite our exhaustive efforts, the Haslam Sports Group is choosing to pursue a move to Brook Park,” Bibb said. “This is a deliberate choice—one driven by a desire to maximize profits rather than positive impact. They had the opportunity to reinvest in Cleveland, transform the current stadium into a world-class facility, enhance the fan experience, and remain highly profitable. We put those options on the table in good faith. Unfortunately, that was not enough.”
The Haslams began conversations about a new Browns stadium in 2017. Their original plan was a $1.2 billion renovation of newly-renamed Huntington Bank Field, to be funded in a 50-50 private-public partnership.
But their vision changed when they concluded a massive redo of the lakefront stadium would not alleviate enormous accessibility and parking nightmares on the site locked in between Lake Erie and the Route 2 Shoreway.
Earlier this year, the Haslams secured an option to purchase 176 acres near Cleveland Hopkins-International Airport in Brook Park. It was mistakenly assumed by many that it was merely a bargaining ploy to gain more favorable public financing for the renovation of the existing stadium. In fact, it opened the eyes of the Haslams to a massive development opportunity beyond a football stadium.
In August, the Haslams released renderings of a state-of-the-art covered stadium barely rising above ground that could host major events year-round, surrounded by a mixed-use entertainment district that would include up to three hotels, plus commercial and residential offerings. The cost would be $2.4 billion for the stadium, and another $1.1 billion for the private development.
In a statement released after Bibb’s press conference, the Haslam Sports Group said:
“We’ve learned through our exhaustive work that renovating our current stadium will simply not solve many operational issues and would be a short-term approach. With more time to reflect, we have also realized that without a dome, we will not attract the type of large-scale events and year-round activity to justify the magnitude of this public-private partnership. The transformational economic opportunities created by a dome far outweigh what a renovated stadium could produce with around ten events per year.”
In his efforts to keep the Browns from leaving downtown, Bibb proposed making Burke Lakefront Airport available as a site for a new stadium. The Haslams rejected it.
“The significant design, construction, geotechnical and environmental challenges were again apparent,” the Haslams’ statement said. “Our work reinforced that despite the City, County and our team doing their best to make the economics work, building a stadium on the Burke property is cost prohibitive and not feasible, especially with no certainty regarding potential timing of closure of the Airport.”
Earlier this year, Bibb gave the Browns a deadline to accept an offer of $461 million in public funding to keep the team on the lakefront. Now he is keeping the door open for the Haslams to revisit their decision to leave.
“My team and I stand ready to re-engage with the Haslams if the Brook Park option does not prove viable,” Bibb said. “And should the Haslams reconsider, we are ready to return to the table and continue working towards a solution that keeps the Browns in the city that has stood by them for decades and decades and decades: Cleveland, Ohio.”
But it seems the only thing that stands in the way of the Browns moving to a new stadium in Brook Park, presumably for the 2029 season, is a funding mechanism that partners the Haslams’ personal contribution with public money.
“With the funding mechanisms we continue to work on, this stadium will not use existing taxpayer-funded streams that would divert resources from other more pressing needs,” their statement said. “Instead, the over $2 billion private investment, together with the public investment, will create a major economic development project that will drive the activity necessary to pay the public bond debt service through future project-generated and Browns-generated revenue.”
In the last paragraph of their statement, the Haslams addressed the elephant in the room – the Browns’ horrible start to the 2024 season.
“As we have previously said, we understand this is a complex process with more questions still to be answered and we will continue to communicate openly as our process evolves,” they said. “We recognize our season on the field has not had the start we all hoped for and are working hard to improve each week to make our fans proud. At the same time, it is critical that we remain committed to the best long-term, sustainable solution for our stadium and to providing the world-class dome experience our fans deserve. We are confident that the Brook Park project will significantly benefit the Northeast Ohio region for generations to come.”