Browns and Cleveland make peace, reach $100M deal to move stadium to Brook Park

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The long-running standoff between the city of Cleveland and Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam is officially over.

Mayor Justin Bibb and the Haslams jointly announced Monday afternoon an agreement that clears the way for a new $2.4 billion stadium in Brook Park — and ends months of legal and political wrangling over the team’s plan to leave the downtown lakefront.

“I went over to Jimmy’s house on Friday,” Bibb said. “We had two Cokes and struck a deal.”

A city spokesperson said the final settlement will have to be approved by Cleveland City Council, where legislators initially told cleveland.com they were “disappointed” with the final deal.

Under the agreement, the Haslams will move forward with a covered stadium near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. In return, they’ve agreed to give the city $100 million to help demolish the current lakefront stadium, prepare the site for future development and fund other city projects. The demolition is expected to cost about $30 million.

The Haslams will pay the city $25 million by Dec. 1, followed by annual payments of $5 million from 2029 through 2033, after the stadium lease ends, Bibb said. Starting in 2034, the city will receive $2 million a year for 10 years for what Bibb described as “mutually agreed community benefits” — suggesting the Haslams will have a say in how the money is spent.

The city and the Haslams will also collaborate on a new road network designed to serve both the Brook Park stadium and the nearby airport.

“It’s not in our interest to have a bad traffic situation,” Haslam said.

As part of the settlement, Cleveland will drop all pending litigation against the team and its ownership, including its objections to the stadium’s height and its proximity to airport flight paths.

The deal closes the books on a complex legal fight that stretched across both state and federal courts. The Browns sued the city and the state of Ohio late last year in federal court, arguing that the Modell Law — a statute enacted after Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore — was unconstitutional. The law required tax-supported professional sports teams to give their host cities a chance to buy the franchise before moving.

City attorneys and the Ohio attorney general’s office had asked a federal judge last month to dismiss the Browns’ suit. The attorney general argued the case was moot because the state legislature had since rewritten the Modell Law to apply only to teams moving out of Ohio — a change included in the same state budget bill that earmarked $600 million in public funding for the new stadium. Cleveland’s lawyers, meanwhile, maintained that the law was never unconstitutional and that the team’s dispute belonged in state court, not federal court.

The city also had filed its own lawsuit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, arguing that the Browns violated their lease at the lakefront stadium and that the old version of the Modell Law still applied because taxpayers had invested more than $500 million in the facility. And the city filed notice in court earlier this month, announcing its plans to appeal the state’s approval for the stadium height of 221 feet near the airport.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *