Browns: Could the domed stadium plan fall apart?

The Haslams continue to take a PR hit over the proposed stadium in Brook Park. But gaining the appropriate funding is all that matters at this point.

In February 2024, news first broke that the Cleveland Browns were interested in relocating from downtown Cleveland to build a domed stadium and a surrounding entertainment complex in the suburb of Brook Park.

The announcement was probably a bit overdue, given the current landscape of the NFL, as new stadiums have opened in Minnesota, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles over the past nine years. Additionally, stadiums are currently under construction in Buffalo and Nashville.

By comparison, Huntington Bank Field, which has been home to the Browns since 1999, started to look worse. Never a great venue after hastily being built on the site of Cleveland Municipal Stadium, the lack of amenities for fans and, most importantly, the corporate audience doesn’t work in the modern NFL.

What once seemed like an exciting opportunity has continued to receive pushback from various corners of the community as the PR pendulum continues to swing between fans and the corporate business community ready for a new experience, and politicians and small business owners who rely on the gameday experience, advocating for the Browns to remain downtown.

The PR noise may have hit its peak last week when the Ohio House Senate proposed funding the $600 million the Browns need from the state for the project with money from the state’s Unclaimed Property Fund. That led Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne, who has consistently voiced his opposition to the Browns moving, to refer to the plan as a “boondoggle.”

In this instance, words are just words, and the reality is that the project is likely going forward as long as the funding comes through from the following sources, as laid out by Haslam Sports Group:

• $1.2 billion in private funding that would also cover any cost overruns
• $422 million from Brook Park, which would come from financed bonds
• $178 million from Cuyahoga County, which would come from county-issued bonds that would be paid back by revenues from the site, and two potential new sources – raising the current bed tax on hotels from 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent, and a $6 surcharge on rental cars, both of which would presumably hit the wallets of visitors rather than residents.
• $600 million from the state of Ohio. State legislators and Gov. Mike DeWine are still haggling over how to fund that amount, but everyone appears to be on board, so the Haslams can probably count on the state coming through.

But what if the funding plan fell apart? Could that lead to the Haslams forgoing Brook Park and staying downtown?

Even if Ronayne somehow convinces his fellow county executives not to fund the stadium, even though it is in Cuyahoga County, the Haslams should be able to find a way to cover that line item. They would not like it, but it would not be enough of a financial hit to derail the project.

A bigger issue would be if state officials reversed course and decided that $600 million might be better spent elsewhere. If that were to happen, it could make it easier for county officials to withhold their portion and put pressure on the owners to stay downtown.

Losing out on almost $800 million in public funding would hurt anyone. But is staying downtown even a viable option at this point?

The Haslams have outlined a “Plan B,” at a cost of $1 billion, to renovate rather than replace Huntington Bank Field. That might make the fan experience marginally better, but it would still lag far behind what other teams have, as there is only so much you can do at the current location.

And forget about any entertainment district around the stadium, as there is no room to build anything with Lake Erie to the north, the highway to the south, and the Great Lakes Science Center and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to the east. The idea of closing Burke Lakefront Airport to help keep the Browns downtown has been floated, but it does not seem like a viable option.

That plan would also put the City of Cleveland back on the hook for $461 million, which Mayor Justin Bibb previously pledged for a renovation. That is a big ask for a city that is consistently ranked as the second-poorest big city in the country, with 29 percent of its residents living below the poverty level and another 33 percent being part of the ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) population. The ALICE population is made up of people working, sometimes at multiple jobs, but still unable to afford the basics in the city or county where they live.

It might be difficult to accept, especially for Bibb, as he is running for re-election and is the current head of the Democratic Mayors Association, as no one wants to be the one in office when the Browns move out of downtown. But he may need to take the short-term hit and use the city’s money where it would have the most impact.

As for the county, it is hard to argue that the Browns should receive county money if they stay in Cleveland but not if they move to Brook Park, which is also in Cuyahoga County, just like the team’s headquarters and training facility, which has been in Berea since 1991.

They may be the Cleveland Browns, but in reality, they are a large part of Northeast Ohio, and a 14-mile move down the road is not going to change that.

The road to Brook Park may not have been as smooth as the Haslams would have hoped, but as long as the money is there at the end of the journey, the domed stadium project is going to happen.