Cleveland makes Browns $461m stadium offer

The City of Cleveland has made its first official move over the Cleveland Browns’ stadium future by outlining a $461m (£362.4m/€426.7m) funding contribution towards a redevelopment of the NFL franchise’s current home.

City officials yesterday (Thursday) put forward what they claim is a “competitive deal” to retain the team at Cleveland Browns Stadium. Cleveland Mayor, Justin Bibb, and civic leaders have set out the proposal on the basis that the stadium is more than just a venue and that keeping the Browns in Cleveland is vital for sustaining downtown’s successes, regional health and the city’s global image. 

Bibb said in a statement: “We are implementing a bold vision for lakefront development, and the Browns have been an essential fixture on our lakefront for decades. But our first priority is always our residents.

“Having the Browns play here is integral to our city’s identity and community spirit. This initiative must go beyond the Browns and be about what’s best for downtown, the neighbourhoods, the suburbs, and the region.”

The City’s proposal comes as the Browns debate whether to commit to a redevelopment of their existing home, which would cost in the region of $1bn, or further explore a proposed new domed stadium in Brook Park, around nine miles southwest of Downtown Cleveland, which would likely cost at least $2.4bn.

“Losing the Browns would harm Cleveland and all Clevelanders,” said Bibb. “Lower spending downtown would negatively affect tax revenues that provide essential services for a city in need. It would close businesses, cost jobs, empty out storefronts, and make our downtown feel less alive.

“We also can’t lose sight of how a new venue would cost taxpayers – including Clevelanders – hundreds of millions more while undermining the city and region’s other critical needs. A strong urban core drives success for the entire region.”

In a letter to Haslam Sports Group, the Browns’ ownership body, Bibb stated: “We are unified in our belief that transforming the current facility is unquestionably in the best interests of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. We do not believe any public financial support should responsibly be made available for development of a stadium outside of the City of Cleveland.”

Bibb is seeking a response to this letter by August 12 and emphasised that the Browns had presented the city with “exciting and transformational plans” for a modernised facility on the lakefront, aligning with the city’s commitment to a vibrant shore-to-core-to-shore plan for Cleveland.

The Browns’ current lease deal at Cleveland Browns Stadium, formerly FirstEnergy Stadium, is due to expire following the 2028 NFL season. The Browns have called the 67,431-seat stadium home since it opened in 1999 and a proposed 30-year lease arrangement is on the table that the City states will provide the team with a “dramatically transformed facility that will serve the region for decades”.

The funding model sets out that fans paying for tickets cover the cost of upgrades without negatively impacting the city budget. The City said it is committed to using revenues that would not exist but for this project. This approach, it argues, assures equity, given that 70% of the stadium’s users come from outside of Cuyahoga County.

The total city investment would be $461m without any impact to city services, before any pending County and State commitment. Terms include:

• $367m ($227m from increases in admission tax revenues, $120m from Cuyahoga County sin tax revenues, and $20m in existing stadium capital reserves) over the 30-year lease term, with a five-year renewal option.
• The city will turn the Willard Garage and the Muni Lot over to the Browns for their exclusive use on game days and event days. Parking revenues are expected to generate $94m for capital repairs and improvements.
• Under the current lease, the city covers $1.3m in annual property taxes and insurance, while the Browns pay $250,000 in rent. Under the proposed new lease, rent will be waived for the Browns, but they will assume responsibility for the insurance and tax payments. This adjustment aligns with the lease agreements held by MLB’s Guardians and the NBA’s Cavaliers, making it consistent across sports franchises in Cleveland.

In March, Browns owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam revealed that the team has two “great options” as it weighs up whether to carry out a major revamp of its current stadium or build a new domed venue. Earlier, the Browns said they were “methodically looking at every possibility” following a report that the team had a deal in place to acquire a parcel of land outside of Cleveland that could house a new stadium.

Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer said Haslam Sports Group wants public funding to finance half of either a new stadium or redevelopment project. Browns spokesman Peter John-Baptiste said the Haslams are reviewing Bibb’s letter and will likely have some questions for the city. Then, he added, they’ll have to “figure out where we go from there.”

Haslam Sports Group chief operating officer, Dave Jenkins, said in a statement: “As we have said consistently throughout this process, we continue to communicate and collaborate with the cities of Cleveland and Brook Park, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio on a long-term stadium solution that creates a world-class experience for our fans and positively impacts Northeast Ohio.

“We are working diligently to comprehensively examine all options to identify the best path for not only our fans, but also Greater Cleveland and Northeast Ohio.”