The Browns are challenging the city of Cleveland’s opposition to their $3.4 billion domed stadium project in Brook Park with an amended complaint.
In Cleveland, the Browns are moving forward with their proposal to construct a new domed stadium in Brook Park. In response to the city of Cleveland’s opposition, the Haslam Sports Group, the team’s ownership, proactively addressed the situation on Tuesday.
The Browns communicated with their fan base through a detailed letter and a press release. They revealed that they have submitted an updated complaint in their federal lawsuit, aiming to refute the city’s unfounded claims.
Recently, the Browns unveiled their financing plan for the $3.4 billion project. This ambitious initiative includes a $2.4 billion domed stadium and a mixed-use development, signaling a significant economic boost for the area.
Team owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, along with their development partners, have committed to invest more than $2 billion in private capital. The state of Ohio would be asked to issue $600 million in bonds that would be paid back by tax revenues, while the city of Brook Park and Cuyahoga County would be asked for an additional $600 million in bonds to be covered by an increased admissions tax, parking tax, bed tax and rental car surcharge.
“Our region deserves a world-class project like this,” HSG Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins wrote to Browns fans. “We love Cleveland and Northeast Ohio and are committed to our community, our schools, our youth sports programs, our involvement in local healthcare, and our extensive impact programs. This project reinforces our dedication to Greater Cleveland and all of Northeast Ohio. HSG, together with its development partners, is prepared to invest more than $2 billion in private capital in the proposed new stadium and surrounding development.”
THE BATTLE WITH CLEVELAND
In its release, the Haslam Sports Group accused the city of Cleveland of “misguiding” Clevelanders “by inaccurately conflating the Brook Park project with Art Modell breaking a lease and moving a team to an entirely different state. The City has done so by invoking the so-called Modell Law – an Ohio law passed in the 1990s in response to the relocation of the Browns out of Ohio – to try and halt the project.”
As mentioned, that statue was passed by the Ohio General Assembly in 1996, a year after Modell moved the original Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore.
The entire statute from the Ohio Revised Code reads as follows:
“No owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:
- Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
- Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months’ advance notice of the owner’s intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team.”
Last October, the Browns filed a federal lawsuit asking a judge to declare the Modell Law unconstitutional. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost later filed a motion to intervene on the city’s behalf, which was granted. More recently, Yost and the city of Cleveland each filed motions seeking to overturn the Browns’ lawsuit.
“The city has never explained how the Modell Law could sensibly apply to the Browns, who will continue to play games in its stadium until the expiration of its lease, and whose owners have committed to keeping the team in the local area long after the lease expires,” said HSG Chief Administrative Officer & General Counsel Ted Tywang in a statement. “In fact, the Haslams’ proposed unprecedented private investment in a world-class stadium and surrounding development, and their continued unwavering commitment to Northeast Ohio, are the complete opposite of the Modell situation. It’s also important to recognize that at least 10 NFL teams play their home games in metropolitan areas outside of the city they represent, so our proposal is entirely consistent with other hometown teams across the country. Our actions in court are intended to ensure that the city’s irresponsible and baseless attempt to apply the Modell Law to the Browns does not slow our momentum to build a world-class stadium right here in Northeast Ohio for the Browns, our fans and the entire region.”
The team’s letter and amended complaint matches the tone Tywang took just last week when presenting the team’s Brook Park stadium proposal in front of Ohio’s House Arts, Athletics, and Tourism Committee.
“A big part of why we’re proposing to leave the lakefront is because of those unsolvable operational challenges. If you’ve been to a Browns game downtown, it’s a mess — pedestrian and auto, it’s not safe,” Tywang insisted. “There’s limited parking. If we invest all this money and don’t fix that, we have failed.”
HSG has insisted there are no viable long-term options in the downtown area, due to the land-locked lakeside and complicated traffic flow. Tywang’s statements at the House were the first time the group had publicly declared a downtown stadium is not a potential option.
The city of Cleveland has not yet responded to Tuesday’s letter or complaint.
The Haslam Sports Group also announced Tuesday that “in addition to its longtime local counsel, Thompson Hine LLC, HSG has engaged the firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz as it seeks to expeditiously resolve this matter and break ground in Brook Park in 2026.”
