DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Haslems Buy 176 Acre Property In Brookpark

As a lifelong Browns fan, 50+ years, I'm for the new stadium. I don't live in Cleveland, thus, I don't have the same feelings as those of you who do. But I have been in that area of Brookpark a lot while driving a truck, and I have to say to develop that into a huge complex will benefit the area greatly. Tourist really won't have a far drive to get downtown to visit other attractions. I fully understand how the locals feel though, and I get it. But, I would like to add this. That stadium has provided nothing but sadness and heartbreak since it was built. Not that a new stadium will matter as far as the team is concerned, but I see it as a way to detach from the stigma.

I’m shocked that nobody is bitching about the dome ruining football on the lake. It’s hard for me to imagine Browns football without the occasional whiteout game.

I'd prefer they stay put with the open air stadium.

And it is a nice walk from the Hilton.

I must say, doing a rapid-read of posts between you and Frankie felt like a courtroom scene between two old fashioned southern lawyers.

Destination Cleveland commissioned study that shows domed Browns stadium on Burke Lakefront Airport land
Updated: Oct. 29, 2024, 4:13 a.m.|Published: Oct. 28, 2024, 1:52 p.m.
Cleveland Browns stadium at Burke Lakefront Airport
Destination Cleveland last month commissioned Vocon architects of Cleveland to create renderings of a new Cleveland Browns stadium on land currently occupied by Burke Lakefront Airport.Courtesy Vocon architects





By Susan Glaser, cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio – Destination Cleveland, which promotes tourism to the region, recently commissioned a study that shows what a domed football stadium would look like on the western portion of Burke Lakefront Airport.

Renderings of the stadium, created by Cleveland-based Vocon architects, were sent anonymously to cleveland.com. They show a 70,000-seat stadium surrounded by hotels, residential development, retail and parking.


Destination Cleveland spokeswoman Emily Lauer confirmed that the agency paid for the study in September.

“Given the unanswered questions about the viability of Burke Lakefront Airport as a development site, Destination Cleveland engaged relevant partners to specifically determine if the airport land could accommodate the program the Browns had proposed in Brook Park,” she said in a statement.

She said the agency supplied the study and renderings to both Cleveland and Cuyahoga County – but not to the Haslam Sports Group, which owns the Cleveland Browns.

Two weeks ago, Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb announced that the Browns planned to move to Brook Park, to a new $2.4-billion domed stadium, after negotiations failed to come up with an agreement to renovate the current downtown facility.

During that same announcement, Bibb also revealed that the city offered the team the possibility of building a stadium at Burke.

He said the Haslams were “not interested in pursuing this option.”


Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer reached out to the Haslam Sports Group for comment.

Cuyahoga County Executive Chris Ronayne on Monday said that the Haslams were shown the Destination Cleveland renderings 10 days before Bibb announced the team was moving to Brook Park.

“What kind of due diligence is that?” Ronayne said. “We don’t even have costs yet.”

Ronayne urged the Haslams to take another look at staying downtown.

“You can have everything you would have in Brook Park, but you have it downtown,” he said. “It synergizes with downtown rather than takes away from it.”

He added, “This isn’t Cleveland vs. Brook Park. It’s about downtown. It’s everybody’s downtown.”

Ronayne acknowledged that the timing of developing the Burke land might take longer than building in Brook Park because of the complicated process of closing an airport.


He suggested that the existing stadium could undergo necessary short-term improvements while the city works to close the airport and prepare it for development.

The Browns involvement, he said, might even speed up the process.

“It gives us a reason to get there quicker,” he said, adding, “Nobody’s told us we can’t get this done in five years.”

The team’s lease on the city-owned downtown stadium runs out in 2028.

The city, in recent years, has been exploring the possibility of closing the small city-owned airport, which has seen operations decline in recent decades. Last month, the city released two studies that consider the impact of a closure, including one that looks at the effect on airport operations and another that examines potential economic impact.

The airport, which opened in 1947, encompasses approximately 450 acres of lakefront land on the east side of downtown.


The Destination Cleveland renderings show stadium-related development could take up approximately 158 acres on the west side of the airport property and would include: a 70,000-seat domed stadium, two hotels with 250 rooms each, 3,000 residential units, extensive retail space, 11,000 parking spaces and a marina.

The rest of the shuttered airport could be developed as a park, according to the renderings.

Domed stadium on the Cleveland lakefront
Destination Cleveland recently commissioned Cleveland's Vocon architects to create renderings of a domed Cleveland Browns stadium on land currently occupied by Burke Lakefront Airport.Courtesy Vocon




Lauer, vice president of public relations and communications for Destination Cleveland, said the organization’s board of directors voted to remain neutral in discussions about whether the Browns should move to Brook Park or stay downtown.

“No matter where the team plays, the organization’s job is to promote the Cleveland football experience,” she said. “The board also concluded that the only way Destination Cleveland could provide value to the negotiations would be – if needed – to conduct research to inform decision making.”

See the renderings of a Browns dome at Burke Lakefront Airport: The Wake Up for Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2024Oct. 29, 2024, 5:03 a.m.

Cleveland Browns file lawsuit against city of Cleveland to test ‘Modell Law’Oct. 24, 2024, 5:34 p.m.

Domed Cleveland Browns stadium on the lakefront
A map shows ingress and egress out of a potential new Cleveland Browns stadium on lakefront, plus areas for tailgating.Courtesy Vocon


Domed Cleveland Browns stadium on the lakefront
A map shows the potential for hotels, residential and retail development surrounding a possible domed Cleveland Browns stadium on the lakefront.Courtesy Vocon

Domed Cleveland Browns stadium on the lakefront
A rendering shows the potential for parkland adjacent to a new domed Cleveland Browns stadium on the property currently occupied by Burke Lakefront Airport.Courtesy Vocon

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024...ium-on-burke-lakefront-airport-land.html

Great.....in September.

Yet, this has been a thing for at least three years. This looks like a rushed effort after the city thought it would call the Haslem's bluff on moving to the 'burbs....and they're now seemingly left holding the bag.

3 years? I feel like the Burke Airport discussion has been going on for decades.

Haslam may be a blood-sucking billionaire, but I still can't help but laugh at Cleveland city officials.

My guess is that Haslam will get his way on this one. Cleveland doesn't have the land anywhere downtown to do a different deal other than Burke...And I'm not sure that can be done. Maybe.

Either way, Haslam will get his way.

Pssst. The City is putting on a dog and pony show and cannot wait to take back some of the most valuable land in CLE. Mark it down, Bibb is fist pumping they're moving to Brook Park and CLE can develop the lakefront. They know full well it would take at least a decade to close Burke. The city is likely hopeful the Haslam's share in the demo cost of the stadium. Haslam and Bibb likely came to this understanding awhile ago.

On a side note, where is the $1.5B in public funding for Haslam's stadium in Brook Park coming from? Haslam Sports Group states it's a $3.5B project with $2B in private funds. Taxpayers? Is this a ballot measure? The State and the County are not covering the expense. Did I miss this answer?

I don't know. The media might do what the media should do and be neutral. If anything I think they may fall in favor of the move. The local media draws far more viewers from the burbs and surrounding areas than from Cleveland city residents.

I am just drawing from the local TV market size. I don't have any specific numbers to back-up my claim.

I was referring to the situation about the Haslems/Browns beginning the conversation about a new stadium with the city.

But yes, the overall airport discussion has been around for decades as a piece of the larger lakeshore development failed projects for equally as long.

It has, but the serious stadium talks from the Haslam Group started about 3 or so years ago. The city should have brought these plans forward 2 years ago to give the Haslams an option to consider. As usual the City dilly-dallied and did little to nothing until the Haslams purchased a large chunk of land in Brookpark. They don't want a large industrial site, they want a site to build a stadium.

I don't know what sort of agreement they entered. The land might be purchased at this point, it might still be in option but if so, they had to put up some serious earnest money they stand to forefit if they back out at this point.

j/c…

Jimmy's reply: To the city of Cleveland, thanks for your concern. The Browns are for sale. Asking price is $25,000,000,000.00. That is, $25 billion. You have 6 months to accept this offer, payable in cash."

I would suppose a sale must go through arbitration or be at "market value", which I suppose would need arbitration. Section 9.67 is silent on the actual process of how "the opportunity to purchase the team" would actually work.

Market value is one way to value a business, asset valuation is another common method, but none are binding methods unless things are spelled out. The $25 billion might be an unrealistic figure but the Haslams are free to pretty much place any value they want.

NFL rules say a controlling member is necessary and needs to own 30% of the team. The Cowboys are valued at $10 billion. The Haslams could use that as a fair starting point under current valuations. In August the owners approved Private Equity funds the ability to purchase up to 10% of a team's shares. That is going to boost team values in a significant way. I think the Haslams could easily say $15 billion is the selling price. Also, the costs incurred by the Haslams in preparing for this proposed move would have to be considered. I would think they would seek to be made whole for land costs, architectural fees, permitting, etc.

You seem well versed on this and I appreciate that. I have never read the said law, nor do I have the inclination to do so. Is there a provision in the law that defines the time frame in which that sale is to be executed? The Haslams are pushing time windows and would need this sale to go through in a fairly short timeframe.

In the end, this is about money, not keeping the team inside the city limits of Cleveland. It seems to me it will much easier on everybody for the cities of Cleveland and Brookpark, as well as the county and Browns to work out some revenue sharing agreement. I am not sure if Brookpark has enough police to make events at the planned stadium secure. Maybe the City of Cleveland helps in that function and the City gets money sharing from that. Any jurisdictional limitations could easily be worked out for any events worked.

Section 9.67:


There is a not less than 6 month window for notification and the sale would occur during that window.

I thought i saw something about a proposed new city ward that would encompass the site. That would solve the issue.

I think it's nothing more than the city throwing a legal tantrum because they lack the ability to provide a state of the art dome.

Possible? Yes. Probable? I wouldn't think so. It will be steep and a short period of time. And the owners would need to approve it.

Yep, it would take an investor, or investors, coming up with an unholy amount of money, on very short notice, for it to happen. As some have said, it is unlikely that Haslem would set a "market" price, but rather a price unlikely, at best, to be reached ... like the highest price ever for an NFL franchise. (and, probably, then some)

And the new owner(s) would immediately want a new stadium where they own and control the parking revenue.

In a purely hypothetical situation, Cavs owner, Dan Gilbert, could buy the Browns. $10B is walk around money to him.

I'm curious about your opinion on something Haslam's attorney's brought up in a claim they filed earlier. It concerns the definition of what the word "elsewhere" means in the Modell Law. I think the question is relative to the discussion and as for myself I wouldn't consider a new stadium that is located in the greater Cleveland area as what the Modell Law means by elsewhere......


It looks as though we'll find out in the future but it does at the very best seem quite ambiguous.

A court will have to answer what "elsewhere" means but a lack of statutory definition means the plain dictionary definition should prevail. That said the word could be defined... elsewhere in Ohio statutes and that could percolate to this section, though I would suspect that it is not an artifact noun and I am not looking.

I would think the elsewhere in this section would be referenced against "political subdivision" which would mean leaving the city boundary. The lawyers arguing about this will get paid a lot for that word.

Thanks.

Just curious of opinion here.

Will the court take into account the impetus for even drafting this statute: the original Browns move (out of state, changing name and attempting to dissolve history of team) when deciding the meaning of "elsewhere"?

The intent of the statue should be taken into account with the courts, it won't stop at one. That said, I think the arguments and who hears them would determine how much it weighs against everything else.

One thought I have had is are there other laws analogous to this elsewhere or is this truly a novel law. That could also weigh on the approach.

I agree that annexation would be the easiest way for the city to solve the problem. Obviously being incorporated the city of Brookpark would have to be on board is some way, shape, or form. I don't know how the state laws would come in to play to allow such a move. I feel that the city should move on that issue if they seek a resolution that is at least semi favorable to their position. I don't think trying to prevent the team from moving the stadium 15 minutes down the road is going to play out well for the city.

The city has dorked around for several years now. It is no secret the Haslams have wanted to build a dome for several years now. The city took the position they couldn't close up Burke lakefront, wouldn't spend any tax money and just kicked the can down the road hoping the issue would just go away. Once the Haslams took an option on the Brookpark property, all of a sudden the city came up with money, parking revenue, issued some rendering of a stadium sitting on Burke property. If the city was serious, Burke would be closing today after 2 years of working with the FAA in making that process happen.

The Haslams are serious and are moving on their timeframe. They aren't going to work on the city timeframe while city council bickers for 3 years over the issues. The city should have been working all of this out 3 years ago.

I hope they get there way.

I don't know if a court will or not. Even though it means nothing I take it into account. They obviously wrote a law, with Modell's name clearly attached, to prevent the new owner from doing what it was that Modell did. This is obviously nothing close to what Modell did in any way, shape or form. I think it's a reach of epic proportions. And sadly I think the city and the mayor already know that.

I think it's nothing but politics so he can later say, "I did everything I could to keep this from happening."

The team would remain in the greater Cleveland area, would still be helping the Cleveland economy as well as retaining the name, history and colors. I don't see this as "elsewhere" from a law that was specifically written to prevent an owner from doing what Modell did.

Does Cleveland enjoy being a laughinstock?

j/c...

“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” Adm. Farragut

hope we get an MLS team in the stadium when they finally move.

Browns execute clause to solidify future purchase of land for new Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium

176-acre site to house stadium and mixed-use development in Brook Park

The Browns have completed the next part in the process toward building a new domed stadium in Brook Park, officially executing the clause and taking steps forward in the land purchase agreement.

The 176-acre site in Brook Park will not only house the new Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium, but also the adjacent mixed-use development.

"We have executed the clause and taken the necessary steps in our land purchase agreement with the current owners to solidify our future purchase of the 176-acre site in Brook Park for a new Huntington Bank Field enclosed stadium, along with an adjacent mixed-use development," Haslam Sports Group-Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins said in a statement. "While work remains with our public partners on the project, this is a key step in our efforts to create a responsible long-term stadium solution that delivers a world-class experience for our fans, attracts more large-scale events for our region and positively impacts our local economy."

In recent months, the Browns have continued to take the necessary steps in pursuing a new domed Huntington Bank Field. In Oct. 2024, the Browns announced their decision to focus their stadium efforts on a domed stadium in Brook Park.

In Dec. 2024, RCLCO, a real estate consulting company, conducted a study that through its findings showcased how a Cleveland Browns domed stadium and adjacent mixed-use development in Brook Park is primed for success in Northeast Ohio and can serve as a catalyst for growth in Cuyahoga County. Their market analysis included program, pricing and absorption, as well as analysis of the projected fiscal and economic impacts of the new Brook Park development.

Through the study, RCLCO found three key findings: the viability of the site for mixed-use development in conjunction with a new domed stadium, the positive economic impact of the new stadium and adjacent mixed-use development and the significant benefits a domed stadium would bring to downtown Cleveland.

Later that month, Lincoln Property Company – a global full-service real estate firm – was announced as the development partner for the Cleveland Browns' 176-acre mixed-use entertainment district in Brook Park. The development is set to be designed by the architecture firm HKS and will be anchored by a new domed stadium.

The mixed-use entertainment district surrounding the stadium will be developed across multiple phases and will ultimately include 300,000 square feet of retail, two upscale hotels, 1,100 apartments, and 500,000 square feet of office. Phase One, which is planned to deliver along with the stadium in 2029, will include 450 hotel rooms; 575 apartments; 96,000 square feet of traditional retail, suited for unique food & beverage and shopping destinations; and 137,000 square feet of experiential retail, which will include a team store, and other experience-based retail concepts that will drive year-round activation and community involvement.

"We will continue to provide updates throughout the process as we work towards bringing this exciting and transformative project to Northeast Ohio," Jenkins said in a statement.

https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/new...g47iin-3IGYXY_aem_cOq66rxc6UU0BQQHScI6bA

It could, but I seriously doubt it. There isn't just the concept of letter of the law. There is also the concept of the spirit of the law. While a move maybe 1/4 mile outside the city limits doesn't meet the letter of the law, all reasonable people know it meets the spirit of the law.

The city isn't the only place that identifies with the Browns. All of NE Ohio owns a part of the Browns.

I suppose they could, but the Haslams own the Crew. They are MLS aren't they? That might be a little close.

I wonder i there was fine print that allowed the team to execute this purchase. I think Bibb just got outsmarted.