CLEVELAND — The war of words between the Cleveland Browns and the city is heating up as the team’s owners push to start construction on a new suburban stadium by early 2026.
Mayor Justin Bibb and Haslam Sports Group traded barbs in public statements and legal filings this week.
On Wednesday morning, the mayor described the team’s plans for a new mixed-use stadium district in Brook Park as a “betrayal of Ohio taxpayers.”
Now, the mayor is moving to boot the team’s chief operating officer, David Jenkins, from the board of directors of the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation, the nonprofit tasked with executing the city’s vision for remaking the Downtown lakefront where the existing stadium stands.
“Yesterday, the Haslam Sports Group released statements displaying their lack of commitment to lakefront development and stating that there is ‘no actionable plan’ for developing the lakefront,” the mayor wrote in an email to members of the nonprofit’s board. “It is not appropriate for David Jenkins, COO of Haslam Sports Group, to continue serving as a director.”
Bibb and Cleveland City Council President Blaine Griffin have called a special board meeting on Monday for a vote on removing Jenkins.
The mayor is reacting to a new legal filing from the Browns, who are promoting their vision for a new, enclosed stadium and trying to clear obstacles on the road to Brook Park.
On Tuesday, the Browns filed an updated version of a lawsuit against the city in federal court, where the team is challenging the constitutionality of a state law designed to make it harder for pro sports teams to leave taxpayer-subsidized facilities.
In that filing, the team’s lawyers said, “The city seeks to hold the Browns hostage to its failure of vision” by fighting the Brook Park move and urging the team to stay Downtown.
“Despite years of discussions,” the team’s attorneys added, “the city still does not have an actionable plan for connecting the lakefront to Downtown on any timeline, let alone one that can be executed by 2029.”
The team’s lease at the existing, city-owned stadium on the lakefront ends on Feb. 1, 2029. The Browns and the city spent years talking about a potential renovation project, and the city has secured $150 million in federal and state grants to help pay for massive infrastructure projects that will make it easier to reach the lakefront from Downtown.
But the Browns say the city’s efforts are too little – and too late.
The team is focused, instead, on its Brook Park plans for a $2.4 billion enclosed stadium, where they’re asking taxpayers to foot half of the bill. They’re looking for $1.2 billion from government-issued bonds – debt they say would largely be repaid using a wide range of state and local tax revenues from the entire Brook Park stadium district.
RELATED: Browns detail their Brook Park stadium financing plans publicly for the first time
“Instead of a sustainable new home for the Browns, transformational for Cleveland and Northeast Ohio, the city insists on a wasteful and expedient renovation at city taxpayer expense,” the team’s attorneys wrote in the new legal filing. “The city’s myopic approach harms not only the Browns but also the county and the city’s own residents.”
Bibb fired back Wednesday, saying the Browns “want to squander taxpayer dollars” on a plan that will “damage Downtown to benefit billionaires.”
And he took particular umbrage at the team’s claims that Cleveland isn’t advancing its vision for the lakefront. He also said the Browns ought to release their shelved proposal for renovating the existing stadium so that the public can see it.
The head of the North Coast Waterfront Development Corporation also responded Wednesday, disputing the Browns’ claims about the lack of lakefront momentum.
“Despite statements made this week, NCWDC and the city have made tremendous progress towards achieving these goals and have created a clear, actionable plan,” Scott Skinner, the nonprofit’s executive director, said in a written statement.
He pointed to the creation of the organization he runs, the federal and state grants for infrastructure projects that are scheduled to start in 2027, and the creation of the city’s first New Community Authority, an entity that will have the ability to collect user fees on the lakefront to help pay for new public spaces, events and other improvements.
Skinner has said that work to develop the lakefront and better connect it to the core of the city will continue, regardless of what happens with Huntington Bank Field.
All eyes on the state budget
The Browns are on a tight timeline to start moving dirt in Brook Park.
The team is asking the state to issue $600 million in bonds to help pay for the project – and to make that commitment part of the next biennial state budget. The budget must be passed and sent to Governor Mike DeWine for his signature by the end of June.
RELATED: Browns reveal more details about Brook Park plans in a pitch to state lawmakers
That means the next few months will be a critical make-or-break period for the deal.
The team is also looking to Brook Park and Cuyahoga County for financing. So far, though, County Executive Chris Ronayne has said the ask is too large, and the deal is too risky. He believes the Browns should stay Downtown.
Then there’s the court fight over the so-called Modell law, a state law that imposes requirements on owners of pro sports teams who are looking to leave taxpayer-supported facilities. The law says that owners must negotiate an exit with their host city or provide six months’ notice about a planned move – and an opportunity for local investors to buy the team.
The Browns filed a federal court lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that law in October.
The team’s growing legal team argues that the law is vague and unenforceable in this situation. The attorneys also say the law doesn’t apply to the Browns since the team plans to stay in the Cleveland area and wouldn’t be moving until after the existing stadium lease ends.
In January, the city filed its own lawsuit in state court, where officials are asking a judge to uphold the law and make the Browns comply with it. The dueling lawsuits are still in their early stages – complicating an already tense situation.
In Tuesday’s federal court filing, attorneys for the Browns said the litigation creates uncertainty that could “unlawfully impair (the team’s) ability to exercise their contractual and legal rights to call a new stadium home in 2029.”
Experts say the law can’t prevent a team from moving. But it can serve as a delaying tactic. The Browns want the federal court to permanently block the city from enforcing the law against them. They’re also asking a judge to make the city pay their legal fees.
“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,” Ted Tywang, the team’s general counsel and chief administrative officer, said in a written statement Tuesday.
Bibb didn’t address the litigation in his statement Wednesday.
