Browns step up legal campaign, Bears stadium proposal revealed

The Cleveland Browns have upped the ante in their efforts to relocate to a new domed stadium in Brook Park, Ohio, by amending their complaint in a federal suit against the City of Cleveland, while another stadium proposal has been set out for fellow NFL franchise the Chicago Bears.

The Browns determination to improve their stadium situation has led to an increasingly fractious relationship with Cleveland authorities, which are seeking to push their claim to retaining the team at a redeveloped Huntington Bank Field.

The Browns initially commenced legal action against the City back in October, regarding a law which seeks to impede the relocation of sports teams. The ‘Modell Law’ was enacted in 1996 and is named after former Browns owner Art Modell, who moved the team to Baltimore that year. The law requires sports teams to give their respective cities six-months’ notice before relocating and to grant the city or area residents the opportunity to buy the team first.

The Browns’ lawsuit, filed in federal court in Cleveland, is seeking to have the law ruled unconstitutional. Cleveland City Council had already passed a resolution directing city administration to enforce the law.

In fresh statements yesterday (Tuesday) which also sought to reinforce the Browns belief that a new stadium represents the best strategy for the team’s long-term future, Haslam Sports Group (HSG), owners of the franchise, asserted that the City has been “misguiding Clevelanders by inaccurately conflating the Brook Park project with Art Modell breaking a lease and moving a team to an entirely different state”.

HSG said it has submitted an amended complaint in its federal suit, challenging the City’s “baseless assertions”. Ted Tywang, HSG’s chief administrative officer and general counsel, stated: “The city has never explained how the Modell Law could sensibly apply to the Browns, who will continue to play games in its stadium until the expiration of its lease, and whose owners have committed to keeping the team in the local area long after the lease expires.

“In fact, the Haslams’ proposed unprecedented private investment in a world-class stadium and surrounding development, and their continued unwavering commitment to Northeast Ohio, are the complete opposite of the Modell situation.

“It’s also important to recognise that at least 10 NFL teams play their home games in metropolitan areas outside of the city they represent, so our proposal is entirely consistent with other hometown teams across the country.

“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.”

Yesterday’s announcement came with the release of a new video of the stadium scheme, which HSG claims marks the largest per capita private sports facility investment in US history. The Browns last month proposed a funding model for its planned new stadium in Brook Park, with almost $1.2bn (£924.6m/€1.1bn) of public backing being sought.

The stadium portion of the project is projected to cost about $2.4bn, with HSG seeking a 50-50 public-private partnership. The private funding is worth $1.2bn, as well as any cost overruns. HSG is seeking almost $1.2bn in public funding, which would comprise three components: the City of Brook Park, Cuyahoga County and the State of Ohio.

In January, the Browns stepped up relocation efforts by advancing a purchase agreement for a 176-acre package of land that is intended to not only house the new Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium, but also an adjacent mixed-use development.

Located within Cuyahoga County and adjacent to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, the 176-acre site is situated 15 miles from Downtown Cleveland, where the Browns’ current home is based.

The Browns signalled their intention to pursue a move to a new domed stadium in Brook Park back in October, a decision Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb slammed as “driven by a desire to maximise profits rather than positive impact”.

The Browns have been exploring the prospect of building a new venue or renovating their current since 2017 as their lease at the current Huntington Bank Field expires in 2028. In December, Lincoln Property Company was announced as the development partner for the Browns’ mixed-use entertainment district in Brook Park. The development is set to be designed by the architecture firm HKS and will be anchored by the new domed stadium.

The Browns’ owners, Dee and Jimmy Haslam, added yesterday: “The Cleveland Browns and our community need and deserve a new home – and from the outset we have been unequivocal that it must positively benefit our community and Northeast Ohio.

“The proposed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park meets this vital objective and will reflect positively on our world-class region and its promising future. It also reflects our 100% commitment to keeping the Browns in their home market for generations to come.”

Farpoint sets out Bears vision

In other news, Farpoint Development, which is the company behind regeneration efforts for a plot of land on Chicago’s South Side, has revealed its vision for an enclosed stadium and associated mixed-use development for the Bears.

After first emerging in November, Farpoint has now decided to publicly set out its stall to keep the Bears in the city amid a growing belief the team is focusing its attention elsewhere. The City-owned plot of land used to house Michael Reese Hospital and had originally been intended as the site of an Olympic Village as part of Chicago’s ultimately doomed tilt to secure the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Farpoint’s vision encompasses a privately-funded 75,000-seat domed stadium with a price tag of $3.2bn, along with $356 million parking and infrastructure investment. Farpoint founding principal, Scott Goodman, said in a statement: “We believe in Chicago. We have proposed an opportunity for the Bears to explore our site, which is viable and where a stadium can fit. And it fits on the south side of Chicago, bridging the gap to downtown.

“As we continue our infrastructure work on the Bronzeville Lakefront site, we would love to make it home to the Chicago Bears, but regardless, we will continue the work needed to make it Chicago’s premier mixed-use community.”

Bears president and CEO, Kevin Warren, has previously dismissed the chances of development on the Michael Reese site, stating the footprint of the land was too narrow and building over existing railroad tracks wouldn’t be met with approval from the NFL.

Also in November, the Bears reached a tentative agreement with the village of Arlington Heights and local school district leaders over a property tax bill for a potential new stadium at Arlington International Racecourse.

The Bears’ current home, Soldier Field, has a capacity of 61,500 and is the smallest stadium in the NFL, with the team’s current lease deal due to run until 2033. In April, the team unveiled plans to build a new fixed-roof stadium south of Soldier Field, but with work having been slated to begin this summer there has been little progress in advancing this scheme.

“If the Bears really want to stay in the city and want to stay on or near the lakefront, this solves for that,” Goodman added to Crain’s Chicago Business. “If they want to be involved with furthering the development, this (offers that). There is room for more development besides the stadium here…. It’s everything that Arlington Heights is, except it is on the lake.”