The Cleveland Browns are leaving Cleveland for Brook Park, the mayor announced

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Cleveland Browns want to leave the city of Cleveland for a new stadium at Brook Park, according to Cleveland Mayor Justin Beebe.

Bibb announced the bombshell at a press conference at City Hall on Thursday afternoon. It comes more than a year after negotiations during which Bibb and Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam failed to agree on a deal to renovate the Browns' current home at city-owned Lakefront Stadium in downtown Cleveland.

If the Browns leave Cleveland, it will mark the second time in three decades that Cleveland's home team has fled the city limits.

The Haslams' decision to leave Cleveland is a “disappointing and deeply disappointing” move that will weaken downtown Cleveland and harm the area by creating a new suburban entertainment district that will compete with existing downtown amenities.

The mayor described his negotiating philosophy as one that prioritizes the needs of the city over the wishes of team owners.

“Yes, the Browns and our audience are important,” he said. “But the well-being of those who live here will always come first. This was our most important priority, and it was something we should never compromise.”

In a lengthy statement Thursday afternoon, the Haslams didn't directly say they wanted to move to Brook Park, though they talked about a domed stadium and how it would be an economic boon to the region.

Decades of research show that public subsidies for new sports stadiums do not provide such benefits, despite sports teams and government officials routinely claiming otherwise. What new stadium projects achieve, according to research, is shifting economic benefits from one area of ​​a region to another.

In their statement Thursday, the Haslams gave a vague description, but no specifics, of how they might finance their plans for a $2.4 billion domed stadium at Brook Park.

“With the funding system we continue to work on, this stadium will not use existing taxpayer-funded streams which would divert resources from other more pressing needs. Instead, private investment of more than $2 billion, along with public investment, will create a major economic development project that will drive the activity needed to service public bond debt through future project-generated and Browns-generated revenue,” the statement said.

Brook Park Mayor Edward Orcutt did not share any financing details when contacted by cleveland.com/The Plain Dealer.

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronin and Council President Pernell Jones Jr. already publicly shut down the possibility of county funding during an August news conference, saying a county subsidy for a Brook Park stadium doesn't make financial sense for residents or taxpayers.

Ronayne, in an emailed statement Thursday, said he had already made his position clear: “The Browns' stadium should be downtown,” he said.

If the Haslams find their Brook Park plan isn't viable, Bibb said he's willing to return to the negotiating table to keep the Browns in Cleveland, but only if the city's contribution is “responsible” to residents and taxpayers. If the Browns leave Cleveland for Brook Park, Cleveland is already working on an alternative plan for the lakefront that doesn't include the Browns, he said.

How the discussion soured

So far, the Haslams have said they are looking at two options for the Browns' future home, once the current lease expires at the end of the 2028 season. Their first option was a $1 billion makeover of the existing stadium, and the second was a new domed stadium at Brook Park.

The Haslams are yet to purchase the 176-acre plot that is under consideration there. They indicated that a stadium at Brook Park would be part of a much larger, yet-to-be-built, entertainment district.

Bibb proposed $367 million in Cleveland taxpayer money for Lakefront Stadium renovations and $93 million for future maintenance. He made the offer public on August 1

When it became clear during negotiations that the Haslams preferred a new domed stadium to an open-air lakefront stadium renovation, Bibb said he tried to pivot by offering a portion of the land on which Burke Lakefront Airport sits.

That late-game pivot, Bibb said, is spending time that could be used to hash out a viable option in Cleveland.

Describing how negotiations began in 2022, Bibb paints a picture of a city hall willing to take the Haslams' demands seriously.

The Haslams wanted a 50-50 split between private financing and public financing, so Cleveland “came close” to providing that, Bibb said.

They wanted a vibrant, improved lakefront around the stadium and better entry and exit for fans. So, Cleveland sought and secured federal and state money for that plan and “accelerated” its lakefront redevelopment efforts, including plans for a pedestrian land bridge over the Shoreway, he said.

“Every milestone they asked for, we did,” Bibb said.

In the past four to six weeks, Bibb said he even explored what it would take to close Burke and provide a portion of that land for a new football venue and surrounding development, but the Haslams “are not interested in pursuing that option.”

That timing ties in with a recently released study by the city that suggested closing the Burke would be feasible and “economically advantageous,” though Beeb didn't mention the stadium as a possible use for the site at the time.

In both offers — at the current site and at Burke — Beebe said he tried to balance the needs of the Haslams with those of the larger community.

“Haslam Sports Group wants a roof over their heads, but it's my responsibility as mayor of this great city to make sure the residents of Cleveland have a roof over them,” Bibb said, adding, “We must be practical about our many needs. And resources.”

Bibb said its offerings would provide world-class facilities, improve the fan experience and allow the team to remain “highly profitable.” Of the Burke offer, he said it would compete with – and could be “arguably better” than – Brook Park's development plan. Bibb, however, did not say who would provide the rest of the money to build the expensive dome.

The Haslams, in their statement, said the economics would not have worked at Berk given what they described as “significant design, construction, geotechnical and environmental challenges.”

This would be “cost prohibitive and not feasible, especially with no certainty as to the likely timing of airport closures,” the statement said.

What now, for the city and the Browns?

Next steps remain uncertain.

Bibb raised two outstanding questions about the effectiveness of Brook Park's relocation to the City Council: the enforcement of the state's “art model law” and the enforcement of a contract that would bind the “Cleveland Browns” name to any professional football team physically based in Cleveland. .

Those two points will be “taken questions for the City Council,” Bibb said.

The state's Art Models Act, which was passed after his namesake, former team owner Art Models moved to Baltimore in 1996, courts have yet to uphold its constitutionality. This requires sports teams to give their respective cities six months' notice before leaving and allows home city or area residents to purchase the team first.

The City Council quickly put the ball back in Beebe's court on the Art Model Act. In a social media post later Thursday, the council said it expects Mayor Cleveland to enforce the law.

Separately, Bibb sent a message to state leaders, including Gov. Mike DeWine, about their possible funding support for a Brook Park stadium during a Thursday news conference.

Bibb discouraged DeWine from activating the Brook Park Plan, saying that “allocating scarce public resources to one side [Brook Park] A move that hurts downtown and weakens Cuyahoga County is bad public policy.”

If the state offers several million for the Brook Park plan, Bibb said he hopes they will contribute the same to a new or renovated stadium in Cleveland.

Cleveland.com reached out to a spokesperson for DeWine Thursday afternoon.

Several state lawmakers told cleveland.com in recent days that they had heard nothing about an announcement that the Browns would be moving to Brook Park.

“No one has reached out,” said state Rep. Tom Patton, a Strongsville Republican whose district includes Brooke Park, in a text message Thursday afternoon.

During initial meetings with state lawmakers last spring, Browns representatives indicated the team was looking to the state to provide support through next year's budget process.

When cleveland.com spoke with Brooke Park Mayor Orcutt, he said he was “incredibly excited” about the news, which he said the team told him Thursday.

Orcutt declined to discuss a potential financing plan, including any subsidies provided by the city of Brook Park. He said the city and team owners are working on a traffic study to determine the necessary changes to adjacent roads, and he acknowledged that the city would need to beef up municipal services, including more police, to make the domed stadium a reality.

Orcutt said he still hasn't discounted the city's increased spending on a new stadium and other related needs.

Orcutt said: “We are building a dome. We're going to have more events here. We're going to make sure those events generate enough cash for the city of Brook Park [allow the Browns to] Come here if it can't generate and guarantee enough cash for Brook Park, I'll work with our commissioners and council to be able to present information that probably won't work here.”

Despite the decision to move the team to a new stadium outside of Cleveland, the Haslams still insist that their commitment to the city of Cleveland remains intact.

“Cleveland and Northeast Ohio are the fabric of the Browns and always will be,” they wrote. “Our community's commitment to Cleveland and efforts to improve the lives of its residents will not change.”

Cleveland.com Reporter Jeremy Pelzer contributed to this story.