Browns Fire at City of Cleveland for New Stadium Block Initiative

The war of words between the Cleveland Browns and the city of Cleveland over the team’s recently announced new stadium plans continues to be made public.

Earlier this week, the city invoked the infamous Art Model Act in an attempt to block owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam from moving the team from their current stadium in downtown Cleveland to a new, state-of-the-art facility in Brook Park. , in Ohio. The political push will ensure the issue is resolved in the courtroom as the city makes a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to keep the team at its current lakefront stadium, Huntington Bank Field.

In response to the city, Dave Jenkins, Chief Operating Officer, Haslam Sports Group, reacted to the city’s latest round of political theatre:

Throughout our future stadium planning process, we have always acted transparently and in good faith with the City of Cleveland and are disappointed in the City’s recent course of action indicating its intent to pursue litigation regarding the “Model Law.” These statements and similar actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interests of Greater Cleveland. That’s why we filed a lawsuit today to clarify this vague and ambiguous law.

Today’s declaratory judgment action was filed to remove this issue from the political arena and ensure that we can move forward with this transformative project to make the new domed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park a reality. We are not interested in any contentious legal battles, but we are committed to creating a $3-3.5 Billion project that will include approximately $2 Billion in private investment that will contribute to Greater Cleveland by building a dome stadium and adjacent mixed-use development. . This project will bring leading events and economic activities that will generate significant revenue for the City, County and State. As this is currently an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comment. We expect a positive solution.

The Art Modell Act was first enacted in 1996 and was named after the team’s controversial owner, who moved the franchise to Baltimore the year before. The purpose of the legislation was to prevent the future owner of a Cleveland sports franchise from moving the team out of town by forcing the owner to put the team up for sale first.

The full text of the regulation is as follows:

“The owner of a professional sports team that uses a tax-supported facility for most of its home games and receives financial assistance from the state or a political subdivision thereof shall not cease to play most of its home games at the facility and shall not begin playing most of its home games at the facility. Unless the owner is in one of the following situations: home games in one place:

There is only one previous instance of state law invoked. In 2017, state Governor Mike Dewine introduced legislation regarding Columbus Crew’s then-owner Anthony Precourt’s attempt to move the team to Austin, Texas. This move ultimately resulted in Haslam purchasing the team to keep it in the state capital.

Ultimately, the key difference in this situation was that the previous owner was considering moving the team to another state entirely. Meanwhile, Haslam’s new stadium proposal for the Browns would see the team move just outside the city limits in Brook Park and just 15 miles from downtown Cleveland.

Time will tell where the political stalemate goes from here.