Browns Fire Back At City Of Cleveland For Attempted Block Of New Stadium

The Cleveland Browns announced their plans to move the franchise to a new stadium to be built in Brook Park last week

Oct 20, 2024; Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett (95) walks off the field after the game against the Cincinnati Bengals at Huntington Bank Field. Mandatory Credit: Ken Blaze-Imagn Images / Ken Blaze-Imagn Images

The war of words between the Cleveland Browns and the city of Cleveland over the team's recently announced plans for a new stadium continue to play out publicly.

Earlier this week, the city invoked the infamous Art Modell Law in an attempt to keep team owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam from moving the team from their current stadium in downtown Cleveland in favor of a new state-of-the-art facility in Brook Park, Ohio. The political move will see the issue play out in the court room, as the city attempts one final Hail Mary to keep the team in their current stadium, Huntington Bank Field along the lakefront.

In response to the city, the Haslam Sports Group, Chief Operating Office Dave Jenkins fired back at the city's latest round of political theatrics:

Cleveland Browns Practice Report: Kevin Stefanski Makes A Stunning Change https://t.co/hNd4HJrAhc

— Cleveland Browns On SI (@CLEBrownsOnSI) October 24, 2024

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 latest course of action stating its intent to bring litigation regarding the "Modell Law”. These statements and similar actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interests of Greater Cleveland. Therefore, today we have filed a lawsuit seeking clarity on this vague and unclear law. 

Today’s action for declaratory judgment was filed to take this matter out of the political domain and ensure we can move this transformative project forward to make a new domed Huntington Bank Field in Brook Park a reality. We have no interest in any contentious legal battle but are determined to create a project that will add to Greater Cleveland by building a dome stadium and adjacent mix-used development, a $3-3.5B project, that will include approximately $2B in private investment. This project will bring premier events and economic activity that will generate significant revenue for the City, County and State. As this is now an ongoing legal matter, we will have no further comments. We look forward to a positive resolution.

The Art Modell Law was first put in place back in 1996 and was named after the controversial owner of the team who moved the franchise to Baltimore one year prior. The legislation was meant to block any future owner of a Cleveland sports franchise from moving the team out of the city by forcing the owning party to first put the team up for sale.

The exact wording of the provision reads as follows:

"No 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 cease playing most of its home games at the facility and begin playing most of its home games elsewhere unless the owner either:

• (A) Enters into an agreement with the political subdivision permitting the team to play most of its home games elsewhere;
• (B) Gives the political subdivision in which the facility is located not less than six months' advance notice of the owner's intention to cease playing most of its home games at the facility and, during the six months after such notice, gives the political subdivision or any individual or group of individuals who reside in the area the opportunity to purchase the team."

There is only one previous example of the state law being invoked. Back in 2017, state Governor Mike Dewine cited the law in regards to then owner of the Columbus Crew Anthony Precourt's attempt to move the team to Austin, Texas. That move ultimately resulted in the Haslam's actually purchasing the team to keep it in the state capital.

Ultimately, the key difference in that instance is that the previous owner was looking to relocate the team to another state entirely. The Haslam's new stadium proposal for the Browns, meanwhile, would see the team moved just outside city limits in Brook Park and only 15 miles from downtown Cleveland.

Where the political standoff goes from here remains to be seen.