House approves Funding. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/ohio-house-approves-state-funding-plan-for-browns-dome-i-team/

Meanwhile, the Rams have come a long way since League Park.

 

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/rams-unveil-plans-for-transformative-headquarters-and-entertainment-district-in-los-angeles/

This shows that our government is all for billionaires wishes rather than helping those whom need true financial assistance.  Shame on our elected officials whom are pushing this through.

15 hours ago, simplythis said:

House approves Funding. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/ohio-house-approves-state-funding-plan-for-browns-dome-i-team/

 

The bright side of this all is that it's a huge influx of money from the state into Cuyahoga County, a region which will benefit from it and has been overlooked relative to other areas. It's not like Columbus just sends us $600 million every day. And the state has a stellar financial/credit position. So it's not like Ohio will be meaningfully harmed if the investment doesn't pay off.

 

But outside of that angle, this is so stupid. DeWine can still do a line item veto, I'm assuming.

6 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

The bright side of this all is that it's a huge influx of money from the state into Cuyahoga County, a region which will benefit from it and has been overlooked relative to other areas. It's not like Columbus just sends us $600 million every day. And the state has a stellar financial/credit position. So it's not like Ohio will be meaningfully harmed if the investment doesn't pay off.

 

 

No it's not. It's a state-authorized value capture mechanism of taxes generated by activities associated with the stadium to service a $600 million bond issuance. No new outside money is coming.

4 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

No it's not. It's a state-authorized value capture mechanism of taxes generated by activities associated with the stadium to service a $600 million bond issuance. No new outside money is coming.

 

It's still working with state-level taxes though, no? Isn't it just reallocating taxes that would otherwise go to the general revenue fund?

 

Or are you saying that they're actually taking away sales tax and property tax that the County would normally have authority to collect and spend?

There are likely state sales taxes currently being generated by the existing lakefront stadium that are going to the state. Some of them are coming back to our area for public services but others are going to statewide uses. Question is, do you want that tax money to pay for public services here and statewide, or just for a stadium. Unfortunately, there's been no analysis released publicly about this yet, per this article published today.... 

 

https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2025-04-10/most-ohio-house-republicans-team-up-to-pass-budget-with-600m-browns-bond-package?_amp=true

How does this pay out if HSG does get the money from the state, but not the county? Does Brook Park have to come up with the other 600 million in bonds or funds? My understanding is that the County was being asked to act as a pass through for Brook Park's bonds due to their superior credit rating, and that they are unwilling to do so. Can Brook Park realistically take on this risk, and what happens if they do and it doesn't pan out for them? I assume default, but then what? Is there a chance this could end up with Cleveland annexing Brook Park to save them from default? I genuinely don't know how this situation could unfold, or if it is even a possibility. 

^ Well, we always expected the State to come through for Jimmy, didn't we?

 

So, the dollars are:

 

2.4 billion for the dome which works out to 1.2 billion from Jimmy, 600 million from the State and 600 million from the County/City.

 

That brings us to the crux of the issue. Which is what will the County/City do now? IF they hold that means Jimmy has to come up with that 600 million on top of his already pledged 1.2 billion. Will he? And there's the additional millions for the entertainment/hotel around the dome. Not to mention the millions needed for highway/street work to connect everything. Who pays for that?

 

This whole thing is still a long way from a done deal. If the County/City holds and Jimmy decides his new contribution is too much the original lakefront plan may yet be the choice by default. 

The State money is not a done deal.  DeWine has been against this, so there is no guarantee that it will pass the Senate.  DeWine can also veto it if it does pass.

 

Regarding the local bonds, if the County doesn't sponsor them, there are other authorities that could.  Perhaps the Port Authority.  That also seems like a long shot given the County's opposition to this plan, and shaky math that Ronayne highlighted doesn't really make me think entities will be jumping at the chance for these bonds.

36 minutes ago, cadmen said:

^ Well, we always expected the State to come through for Jimmy, didn't we?

 

So, the dollars are:

 

2.4 billion for the dome which works out to 1.2 billion from Jimmy, 600 million from the State and 600 million from the County/City.

 

That brings us to the crux of the issue. Which is what will the County/City do now? IF they hold that means Jimmy has to come up with that 600 million on top of his already pledged 1.2 billion. Will he? And there's the additional millions for the entertainment/hotel around the dome. Not to mention the millions needed for highway/street work to connect everything. Who pays for that?

 

This whole thing is still a long way from a done deal. If the County/City holds and Jimmy decides his new contribution is too much the original lakefront plan may yet be the choice by default. 

We are still waiting on the Senate submission and DeWine (but we know he will fold).  The House statements do not pass laugh or smell tests such as this downstate R: "...said House Finance Chair Brian Stewart (R-Ashville). "And it's backed up by detailed financial metrics, under which the new tax revenue generated by this project will pay the cost of the bonds with no out-of-pocket expense for our taxpayers."  Where are the independent financial analyses vs the make-believe HSG interns' PowerPoint to these gullible (or compromised?) Rs say they trust 100%?

Value-capture backed bonds is a better way to pay for this than more unrelated sin taxes. DeWine is wrong on this.

 

I don't support either mechanism and think the Haslams should pay a greater share. But sin taxes are usually paid disproportionately by low-middle income people.

During a segment on 92.3 this morning, they noted that there was an amendment offered by a GOP rep that would prevent the state from providing loans for professional sports stadiums. The amendment failed but the vote was extremely close. This potentially suggests that funds approved for the stadium aren't widely popular among state GOP reps and that a veto may not be overturned. I still think a line item veto of the $600M is wishful thinking but if DeWine has the spine, the veto may hold.

1 hour ago, MostlyThere14 said:

During a segment on 92.3 this morning, they noted that there was an amendment offered by a GOP rep that would prevent the state from providing loans for professional sports stadiums. The amendment failed but the vote was extremely close. This potentially suggests that funds approved for the stadium aren't widely popular among state GOP reps and that a veto may not be overturned. I still think a line item veto of the $600M is wishful thinking but if DeWine has the spine, the veto may hold.

 

The article I posted above also noted this year. It also noted that:

 

Ferguson said the bond package likely led five Republicans to join all Democrats in voting against the budget, and suggested other Republicans wanted to make it clear they didn't like the plan.

4 hours ago, KJP said:

There are likely state sales taxes currently being generated by the existing lakefront stadium that are going to the state. Some of them are coming back to our area for public services but others are going to statewide uses. Question is, do you want that tax money to pay for public services here and statewide, or just for a stadium. Unfortunately, there's been no analysis released publicly about this yet, per this article published today.... 

 

https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2025-04-10/most-ohio-house-republicans-team-up-to-pass-budget-with-600m-browns-bond-package?_amp=true

 I obviously want all government monies at every level to be spent responsibly. That includes city, county, state, and federal. I'm just questioning whether any of the money they're using was actually local money. In other words, my only point is that if it's revenue that would be just going into the general fund otherwise, we probably do benefit from it more if it's being poured into a massive construction project in the county. Even if that construction project is dumb and inefficient.

 

2 hours ago, Dino said:

The State money is not a done deal.  DeWine has been against this, so there is no guarantee that it will pass the Senate.  DeWine can also veto it if it does pass.

 

Regarding the local bonds, if the County doesn't sponsor them, there are other authorities that could.  Perhaps the Port Authority.  That also seems like a long shot given the County's opposition to this plan, and shaky math that Ronayne highlighted doesn't really make me think entities will be jumping at the chance for these bonds.

 

Yeah, I too don't get what the endgame is here. Very high chance of DeWine veto. Remember, he has line item authority, so he can strip out bond without jeopardizing anything else. And beyond that, if the County and City are united against chipping in, I'm not sure where the rest of the money comes from. Maybe bribing the statehouse was just phase 1 of Jimmy's plan and phase 2 involves bribing Cuyahoga County council.

So, are they just going to leave the Bengals hanging? I'm surprised no one from Cincy is down there saying they want their $600M too.

11 minutes ago, coneflower said:

So, are they just going to leave the Bengals hanging? I'm surprised no one from Cincy is down there saying they want their $600M too.

Not so fast. 350 mil for a 830 million Reno 

 

“Between now and July 1 there’s going to be an awful lot of changes to the budget,”

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2025/04/10/hamilton-county-asks-state-money-paycor-stadium/83027747007/

 

 

The Bengals request is far more fiscally reasonable than the Browns. Whether its enough noise to raise questions about Brook Park I'm unsure. I am certainly not convinced the Brown family, who have a reputation for being amongst the most frugal in all of pro sports, have been greasing the palms of politicians to gain favor. Another big thing I am also taking away is that very few of these people understand real estate or the events industry. They see renderings but I don't think they have the knowledge of these things to understand the reality.

Edited April 10Apr 10 by CLE2BAL

Bengals push for 350. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/bengals-hamilton-county-seek-350-million-from-state-for-stadium-upgrades

Dome Project update. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-whats-already-happening-with-browns-dome-project/

Dewine’s comments in that article are interesting and lead me to wonder if he is more likely to like item veto the Browns’ money than I originally thought. He could use the Bengals asking for money as an excuse and say it’d be unfair or something along those lines. 
 

 

7 hours ago, coneflower said:

Dewine’s comments in that article are interesting and lead me to wonder if he is more likely to like item veto the Browns’ money than I originally thought. He could use the Bengals asking for money as an excuse and say it’d be unfair or something along those lines. 
 

 

The Bengals just need to send some suitcases of cash to the right GOP reps in the Statehouse, and all will be fair again. 

9 hours ago, simplythis said:

Dome Project update. https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-whats-already-happening-with-browns-dome-project/

We are glad Ronayne and Bibb continue to stay firm per their quotes in the teevee fox8 story:

• We are not sensing that the momentum is picking up for the Brook Park plan. We are sensing dissension in the ranks down in the state, which may lead this back downtown.”

• Ronayne said he won’t support any county funding to help pay for the Brook Park project.

• “Mayor Bibb appreciates the state lawmakers who are taking a stand against this $600 million taxpayer handout. We remain hopeful that other lawmakers will follow their lead and embrace this fiscally responsible mindset.”

We still can't past the fact that these unknown downstate Rs are running our county public policy - the host county for this power grab - via this vote - disenfranchising local voters by totally disregarding the local elected city and county leaders such as Bibb and Ronayne. Shame!

21 hours ago, Dino said:

The State money is not a done deal.  DeWine has been against this, so there is no guarantee that it will pass the Senate.  DeWine can also veto it if it does pass.

 

Regarding the local bonds, if the County doesn't sponsor them, there are other authorities that could.  Perhaps the Port Authority.  That also seems like a long shot given the County's opposition to this plan, and shaky math that Ronayne highlighted doesn't really make me think entities will be jumping at the chance for these bonds.

 

Yes, l realize the House voting for the bonds is just the first step. The Senate needs to approve them too and then DeWine stays out of it and doesn't veto. But really, when the House voted for the bonds l figured the others will rubber stamp them because l don't see a lot of daylight between the chambers and l sure don't see DeWine getting a backbone  and vetoing the legislature. 

 

Could something change? Of course. I just don't expect it though. Ohio politics have been corrupt for a very long time. Jimmy is a republican. He's donated to all the necessary people. Now he expects his reward. 

 

My original conjecture still stands though. Even with the 600 mill in state bonds Jimmy will come up 600 mill short if Bibb and Ronayne remain holdouts. The game is still being played. We still don't know the ultimate result but somehow, someway l'm expecting to see a dome in BP rather than something downtown. 

 

 

Edited April 11Apr 11 by cadmen

I think the state money is still less than 50/50, but who knows.  It just dawned on me though...what if Haslam gets his $600M from the state based on all these trumped up projections, but can't get the local funding.  Could he take the $600M and build the $1.2B stadium only?  I'm sure he'll say the rest of the mixed use development will be forthcoming, pending future financing, but who would believe him?  It's a terrifying thought, because that's kind of what he wanted all along, it could actually happen, and it would probably be the worst possible outcome.  🤮

1 hour ago, cadmen said:

 

My original conjecture still stands though. Even with the 600 mill in state bonds Jimmy will come up 600 mill short if Bibb and Ronayne remain holdouts.

 

 

Bibb has nothing to do with Brook Park. Ronayne could keep the sin tax money out, leaving it $120 million short (or $4 million per year which can be made up). Brook Park will create a stadium-area TIF district to service a $480 million bond issued through one or more port authorities or similar entities. 

 

1 hour ago, Dino said:

I think the state money is still less than 50/50, but who knows.  It just dawned on me though...what if Haslam gets his $600M from the state based on all these trumped up projections, but can't get the local funding.  Could he take the $600M and build the $1.2B stadium only?  I'm sure he'll say the rest of the mixed use development will be forthcoming, pending future financing, but who would believe him?  It's a terrifying thought, because that's kind of what he wanted all along, it could actually happen, and it would probably be the worst possible outcome.  🤮

 

No. Under the current legislation, the state share cannot be more than one-third of the total stadium project's cost. With Brook Park, the state is being asked to finance one-fourth of the cost.  

On 4/10/2025 at 7:02 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

 

The bright side of this all is that it's a huge influx of money from the state into Cuyahoga County, a region which will benefit from it and has been overlooked relative to other areas. It's not like Columbus just sends us $600 million every day. And the state has a stellar financial/credit position. So it's not like Ohio will be meaningfully harmed if the investment doesn't pay off.

 

But outside of that angle, this is so stupid. DeWine can still do a line item veto, I'm assuming.

 

It's not an "investment". Stadiums do not provide tangible economic returns, as has been documented over and over and over again. You can't rationalize spending hundreds of millions of public dollars on private stadiums when the only beneficiaries will be team owners who had more than enough money to pay for it themselves. 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Bibb has nothing to do with Brook Park. Ronayne could keep the sin tax money out, leaving it $120 million short (or $4 million per year which can be made up). Brook Park will create a stadium-area TIF district to service a $480 million bond issued through one or more port authorities or similar entities. 

 

 

I remember Bibb offering 480 something million for the lakefront. Didn't realize he can't offer it to a BP dome although that does make sense. How can he offer city funding for a dome outside the city? He can't, although the way politicians play fast and furious with public dollars you can see how people can expect practically anything to happen. 

 

So we're down to Ronayne holding fast to a "No."

 

5 minutes ago, cadmen said:

 

How can he offer city funding for a dome outside the city?

 

 

Especially since the city of Cleveland's funding offer was based on a 30-year TIF of lakefront stadium-generated tax revenues. 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Brook Park will create a stadium-area TIF district to service a $480 million bond issued through one or more port authorities or similar entities. 

Wouldn't Haslam's plan B comments suggest that this is not the case?

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's not an "investment". Stadiums do not provide tangible economic returns, as has been documented over and over and over again. You can't rationalize spending hundreds of millions of public dollars on private stadiums when the only beneficiaries will be team owners who had more than enough money to pay for it themselves. 

I am mostly talking about the construction jobs.

2 hours ago, MostlyThere14 said:

Wouldn't Haslam's plan B comments suggest that this is not the case?

 

How?

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

How?

Maybe he'd only turn to Plan B absent state funding and not to fill the gap if the country refuses to participate? Either way, I haven't seen any reporting about various port authorities issuing bonds. Feels like we would have heard something on that front given the county's stance on the matter. 

Edited April 11Apr 11 by MostlyThere14

10 hours ago, Willo said:

We are glad Ronayne and Bibb continue to stay firm per their quotes in the teevee fox8 story:

• We are not sensing that the momentum is picking up for the Brook Park plan. We are sensing dissension in the ranks down in the state, which may lead this back downtown.”

• Ronayne said he won’t support any county funding to help pay for the Brook Park project.

• “Mayor Bibb appreciates the state lawmakers who are taking a stand against this $600 million taxpayer handout. We remain hopeful that other lawmakers will follow their lead and embrace this fiscally responsible mindset.”

We still can't past the fact that these unknown downstate Rs are running our county public policy - the host county for this power grab - via this vote - disenfranchising local voters by totally disregarding the local elected city and county leaders such as Bibb and Ronayne. Shame!

The same Repubs who preach "home rule" until it involves their buddy billionaire lining their pockets

 

9 hours ago, Dino said:

I think the state money is still less than 50/50, but who knows.  It just dawned on me though...what if Haslam gets his $600M from the state based on all these trumped up projections, but can't get the local funding.  Could he take the $600M and build the $1.2B stadium only?  I'm sure he'll say the rest of the mixed use development will be forthcoming, pending future financing, but who would believe him?  It's a terrifying thought, because that's kind of what he wanted all along, it could actually happen, and it would probably be the worst possible outcome.  🤮

What he wanted all along was a sea of surface parking for him to get richer on people parking at his dome. 

4 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I am mostly talking about the construction jobs.

Construction jobs are literally the definition of temporary, especially in stagnant Cleveland Ohio. What do you think happens when the construction is finished? 

Ronayne Speaks .https://www.cleveland19.com/2025/04/12/latest-browns-stadium-with-county-executive-ronayne/ 

10 hours ago, simplythis said:

Ronayne Speaks .https://www.cleveland19.com/2025/04/12/latest-browns-stadium-with-county-executive-ronayne/ 

 

We wish Ronayne could get HSG to release their HKS initial renderings for the lakefront. Could it have been landmark worthy as they developed for Auckland, New Zealand?  Their BP design already looks dated and cookie-cutter in comparison. 

 

Can you imagine this HKS design with a retractable roof dropped on our lakefront? 

 

What a win-win opportunity to unite and rally all behind in order to end the abuser/abused relationship that the Haslams have needlessly perpetrated on the City, County and taxpayers. 

https://www.hksinc.com/what-we-do/projects/auckland-stadium/

On 4/11/2025 at 6:34 PM, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Construction jobs are literally the definition of temporary, especially in stagnant Cleveland Ohio. What do you think happens when the construction is finished? 

Again, not saying any of this is good. Just looking for a silver lining.

On 4/11/2025 at 6:34 PM, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Construction jobs are literally the definition of temporary, especially in stagnant Cleveland Ohio. What do you think happens when the construction is finished? 

But construction has been consistently happening in Cleveland at a healthy clip for the past 10-15 years. Whether the region population has been stagnant or not the construction sector has been booming whether it is conversions, renovations or new construction m

Fight for Ohio Dollars. https://www.cleveland19.com/2025/04/14/cleveland-browns-quest-domed-stadium-starts-an-nfl-fight-ohio-dollars/

how browns stadium would affect those who do not go...

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/04/if-youre-not-going-to-the-games-its-largely-not-going-to-affect-you-breaking-down-the-browns-stadium-deal.html

Edited April 15Apr 15 by lockdog

On 4/14/2025 at 8:05 PM, lockdog said:

how browns stadium would affect those who do not go...

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/04/if-youre-not-going-to-the-games-its-largely-not-going-to-affect-you-breaking-down-the-browns-stadium-deal.html

Seems the PD's Leila Atassi (consultant or journalist?) continues to lead the pro-HSG media - while relying solely on HSG supplied data - and overlooking the recognized fact that all taxpayers are on the hook for over $1 Billion over 30-years. Here is an opposing view for some balance:

 

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/04/15/browns-owners-gave-big-money-to-ohio-lawmakers-who-are-now-making-risky-bets-with-public-dollars/

 

 

 

What I still want to know is if a new PSL will need to be purchased if the current stadium goes through a full renovation? I dont think so........

 

The Brook Park option will require new PSL's.

If its 5k per seat on average at 65k seats, 300 mil plus would be generated.

That (along with $100 parking) is why Brook Park is prefererd by ownership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We note how DC is providing roughly the same % as Cleveland offered (Washington team 2.5B and DC up to $850M) with the team acting as developer of surrounding development. Jimmy and Dee can have the same exact deal in the city only if they wanted to and weren't in an inexplicable rush to drop a cookie cutter already dated design into the Brookpark industrial zone.  Jimmy and Dee if you are going to copy already built stadiums (Vikings) why not copy DC's early renderings which would easily work on our lakefront - both existing site and neighboring Burke land. Just open your minds as you did when you first proposed the lakefront redo and development. If not please sell the team now to someone who has the ability to bring it home:

 

Edited April 18Apr 18 by Willo

The furthest east dome, enclosed stadium, stadium with a roof or however it is termed was such a feeble method of persuasion and it's already looking defunct. I would also wager one or both of the New York teams will eventually play in a similar venue. Still, I don't see any evidence that the powers that be do any research on this matter and bar a last minute surprise I expect this to pass.

Edited April 18Apr 18 by CLE2BAL

1 hour ago, Willo said:

We note how DC is providing roughly the same % as Cleveland offered (Washington team 2.5B and DC up to $850M) with the team acting as developer of surrounding development.

 

Is it realistic to expect an MSA maybe a third the size of DC to front the same amount of money for a new stadium?

1 hour ago, Willo said:

We note how DC is providing roughly the same % as Cleveland offered (Washington team 2.5B and DC up to $850M) with the team acting as developer of surrounding development. Jimmy and Dee can have the same exact deal in the city only if they wanted to and weren't in an inexplicable rush to drop a cookie cutter already dated design into the Brookpark industrial zone.  Jimmy and Dee if you are going to copy already built stadiums (Vikings) why not copy DC's early renderings which would easily work on our lakefront - both existing site and neighboring Burke land. Just open your minds as you did when you first proposed the lakefront redo and development. If not please sell the team now to someone who has the ability to bring it home:

 

DC and Cleveland are in two vastly different positions as cities. Us offering the same percentage as DC shows how bad of a deal this would be for us.