Browns stadium drama stays on the boil, team responds to mayor, county exec

City and county officials continue to question the idea of the team moving to the suburbs.

March is busy across the NFL, perhaps no more so than for the Cleveland Browns.

GM Andrew Berry is busy evaluating the data the team accumulated at the annual Scouting Combine that will help influence the NFL Draft, while also continuing to shop around for free agents.

HC Kevin Stefanski is occupying his time working on how a new quarterback (or quarterbacks) will improve on the 2024 season that saw Cleveland field some of the worst quarterback play in NFL history.

Finally, there is ownership, which is aggressively planning what life will be like for the franchise at the proposed domed stadium in the Cleveland suburb of Brook Park.

As this is the Browns we are talking about, where nothing ever seems to go easy, the stadium plan continues to be an ongoing drama between the team and elected officials from Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland.

On Tuesday, the Haslam Sports Group released its latest statement and video highlighting what they believe are the benefits of the project, which includes the stadium and surrounding entertainment district at an estimated cost of $3.4 billion. The statement also pointed out that Haslam Sports Group and its development partners have committed $2 billion in private capital to the project. That includes $1.2 billion to go toward construction and any cost overruns on the new stadium.

On Wednesday, it was the elected officials turn to have their say, with Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb kicking off the day by calling the whole enterprise a “scheme” that will lead to an increase in taxes, make it more expensive for fans to attend games, and pull other events out of downtown.

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne followed up in the afternoon with a press conference where he said the domed stadium plan raises a “tidal wave of concerns,” primarily that the proposal is a “risky bet with public dollars.”

Ronayne is also not a fan of using county bonds to help fund the project as that could negatively impact the county’s bond rating, which in turn could bring higher interest rates on future bonds and drive up the cost of other projects along the way.

Finally, Ronayne raised questions about how the part of the funding plan where the county and Brook Park would provide $600 million in bonds covered by increases in the admission tax, parking tax, bed tax on hotels, and car rental surcharges.

With no guarantees those taxes will hit their projections, Ronayne is concerned that the burden of repaying the bonds will fall on the public, according to Cleveland news station WKYC:

“The responsibility to pay for that bond, that $600 million, is a responsibility that would be laid upon the public, not HSG. The debt must be repaid by the taxpayers, not HSG. Many members of the public and some elected officials are mischaracterizing the funding proposal as a loan. That’s not the case. This is a bond issuance paid back by the county and the state.”

The Browns ownership responded quickly to Bibb and Ronayne:

The entire situation continues to be contentious, and while a resolution will come at some point, the past two days make it seem like an agreement between the Browns, the City of Cleveland, and Cuyahoga County is not happening any time soon.