Cleveland City Council’s three-hour hearing Monday on Mayor Justin Bibb’s $100 million farewell deal with the Cleveland Browns was the opening salvo in what cleveland.com reporter Sean McDonnell likened to peeling back layers of an onion. Four separate council committees plan to examine the deal, which Bibb has submitted to council for its vote.
Among highlights: The $25 million Browns downpayment on the deal, tentatively to be paid by Dec. 1, would be nonrefundable even if the Brook Park deal falls through — which it could, for instance, if a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Ohio legislature taking Ohioans’ unclaimed funds to underwrite $600 million of the Brook Park project (plus $1.1 billion for other purposes) succeeds.
Meanwhile, while Bibb negotiated a financial deal focused on lakefront development, should he also have sought recompense from the Browns for the likely harm for existing downtown businesses — including parking, entertainment, hotel, restaurant and county convention income? If the Haslams’ plan succeeds for a $2.4 billion retail, hospitality and event complex a short distance away in Brook Park, and right across from the airport, it seems likely to negatively impact downtown.
Our Editorial Board Roundtable members offer their thoughts.
Leila Atassi, manager public interest and advocacy:
Mayor Justin Bibb played a tough hand masterfully. With the state and the Browns stacking the deck, he still walked away with $100 million, a nonrefundable downpayment, and a lakefront finally free of stadium upkeep and subsidies. Losing the team to Brook Park may sting for some, but Cleveland gains something greater — a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine its waterfront. What could be better than that?
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
It’s a telling commentary on Ohio politics that boosting profits of a private enterprise – the Browns – is a greater priority for the insiders choreographing Cleveland’s politics than the future of Cleveland’s urban core. The proposed deal, if the City Council lets it stand, wrecks decades of city efforts, beginning with Gateway, to make center-city Cleveland the pro sports venue in Ohio. Now, it’s goodbye to all that.
Eric Foster, columnist:
Any analysis of this deal must acknowledge that Cleveland could not compel the Browns to stay. I can’t recall any municipality in the country successfully forcing a sports team to stay. Billionaire owners can easily match resources in a fight with a city. The issue now is that City Council wants to influence the outcome retroactively. Ask questions, but this deal/redevelopment project is the mayor’s call, for better or for worse.
Lisa Garvin, editorial board member:
The Browns leaving downtown is a terrible idea. But I credit Bibb for taking advantage of a strong position to get what he can from the Haslams before they become less charitable to the city they’ve called home for decades. Involving a fractious City Council in the negotiations could have left Cleveland with no money at all. I do believe the Browns will regret their decision: Richfield Coliseum, anyone?
Victor Ruiz, editorial board member:
This is an example of both City Council and the Mayor doing their jobs. It’s not easy and puts the city in the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” I just hope they can come together to get us through this and use the moment to make our city stronger. We all know this is a bad move for the entire region, with only one real “winner,” so we need an all-hands approach to make the best of it.
Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member:
Two truths: The Brook Park stadium will benefit Northeast Ohio, and Cleveland proper will lose revenue. Regarding recompense, a 19th-century saying comes to mind: “If ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ were pots and pans, there’d be no work for tinkers’ hands.” As Mayor Bibb has astutely deduced, the city has almost no leverage here. Thus the “deal” is more aptly a “gift,” and “thank you” is likely the city’s best response.
Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director:
There seems to be an assumption here that the state’s 1996 Modell Law -- barring a pro team supported by taxpayers from moving without at least six months’ notice to let a local group buy the team -- is not a factor since state lawmakers amended the law effective Sept. 30, 2025, to specify a move out of state. Yet given that the Browns’ Brook Park maneuvering clearly predated that change, such an assumption seems faulty. I’m guessing Cleveland didn’t want to gamble on the legal costs or outcome. My view: Too bad they didn’t.
Have something to say about this topic?
*Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.
* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this Editorial Board Roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, atesullivan@cleveland.com
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.