Browns stadium drama rolls along

Politicians and business owners question move to Brook Park, team seeking clarity on “Modell Law,” all part of the ongoing discourse.

The Cleveland Browns made what appeared to be the definitive statement last week about their future home.

Team ownership is going to purchase land in the Cleveland suburb of Brook Park, build a domed stadium and an adjacent “lifestyle and entertainment district,” and move into their fancy new digs once their lease with the City of Cleveland is complete in 2028.

Of course, nothing is ever that simple, as other interested parties continue to comment on the matter:

• Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne told Crain’s Cleveland Business (paywalled) that the region needs to consider “the whole community matrix” of the proposal” to determine what is best for the community.
• Micheal Deemer, president and CEO of Downtown Cleveland, told Crain’s that the team’s announcement was a bit mistimed given that “… downtown is rebounding. It feels out of step with what Cleveland’s momentum (is) right now.”
• The business community also weighed in, with Laurie Torres, a restaurant owner and president of Cleveland Independents, a group of locally owned and operated establishments, telling Crain’s that the proposed move signals that the team does not “appreciate the importance of a strong urban center” and that the Browns are turning their backs on a community that has supported them through good times and bad.

While there is no doubt the move makes financial sense for the team, the benefits for the community may not be as clear, as Mark Rosentraub, a professor of sports management and director of the Center for Sports Venues & Real Estate Development at the University of Michigan, told Crain’s:

“(The Brook Park) site does nothing to change the community and environment of Northeast Ohio. One thing that has to be understood … is that the only impact that’s worth public investment is one that enhances regional economic development. This is not a fast-growth region. Instead, what you are doing is diluting a market that is growing slowly at best.”

There is also the legal side of the equation as the City of Cleveland is reportedly preparing a lawsuit against the Browns by using the so-called “Art Modell Law” (officially Ohio Revised Code Section 9.67) that requires owners of professional sports teams that play in a taxpayer-supported stadium to give at least six months’ notice before leaving and must give the city or local investors an opportunity to buy the team.

That all sounds good on paper, but it ultimately could prove worthless as the Browns have checked off on giving six months’ notice and there is no requirement that they have to accept an offer to sell the team.

The Browns responded to the potential lawsuit on Thursday in a statement from Dave Jenkins, chief operating officer for the Haslam Sports Group, that seeks some clarity on the issue:

Throughout our future stadium planning process, we have always acted transparently and in good faith with the City of Cleveland and are disappointed in the City’s latest course of action stating its intent to bring litigation regarding the “Modell Law.” These statements and similar actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interests of Greater Cleveland. Therefore, today we have filed a lawsuit seeking clarity on this vague and unclear law.

As we have consistently conveyed, the intent of our future stadium planning has always been to work in collaboration with our local leaders to find the optimal long-term stadium solution that will benefit our fans while positively impacting our region. Our lease expires at the end of the 2028 season, and we are working hard to develop a long-term solution upon completion of our current agreement.

Today’s action for declaratory judgment was filed to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward to make a new domed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park a reality. We have no interest in any contentious legal battle but are determined to create a project that will add to Greater Cleveland by building a dome stadium and adjacent mix-used development, a $3-3.5B project, that will include approximately $2B in private investment. This project will bring premier events and economic activity that will generate significant revenue for the City, County and State. As this is now an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comments. We look forward to a positive resolution.

In the end, this is all likely just posturing from the various parties. City officials would obviously like the team to remain downtown for the financial benefits the Browns produce when they have a home game.

But it does not appear at the moment there is much they can do. This is not the same situation as when Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore, but more like when the Gund brothers moved the Cleveland Cavaliers from Richfield in Summit County to downtown Cleveland.

Whether the Browns play in downtown Cleveland or Brook Park they will still be part of the fabric of Northeast Ohio. Fans will still go to the games, find a way to tailgate, and continue to hope that they will someday be rewarded for their undying loyalty with a Super Bowl title.