Haslam Sports Group Unveils Financing Proposal for Cleveland Browns Domed Stadium

BEREA, Ohio — The Haslam Sports Group, owners of the Cleveland Browns, presented its financing strategy for the proposed $2.4 billion domed stadium in Brook Park during a press meeting on Thursday.

Jimmy Haslam described the Brook Park project as a “generational opportunity that will transform northeast Ohio.”

The Brook Park initiative, which employs a public-private partnership, anticipates the Haslam family contributing roughly $1.2 billion for the new Huntington Bank Field, aimed to be ready for the Browns by 2029.

How will the remaining funds be raised? The Haslam Sports Group recognized that “the most challenging aspect is public funding.” They indicated that this portion of the investment “does not rely on any current tax revenue and instead utilizes significant new incremental tax revenue generated by the project itself.”

Here is a breakdown of the public funding proposal:

The Haslam Sports Group (HSG) states that “the primary request of the County is to leverage its strong credit to issue bonds that will be repaid through the new project-generated Brook Park revenues, along with two new county taxes on visitors, including a 1% incremental bed tax and a rental car surcharge.”

The county would issue bonds that generate $600 million in “upfront project funding.”

“In our model, over two-thirds of the revenues supporting the County bonds would derive from new Brook Park sources, as approximately $422 million of the $600 million would be attributed to Brook Park admission tax, income tax, and parking tax, all generated by the project,” HSG elaborated in its outline.

The remaining $178 million would originate from the bed tax and rental car surcharge.

The Haslam Sports Group believes Brook Park has the potential for a nearly $1.8 billion fiscal impact over its initial 30-year lease, proposing an increase in the city’s admission tax from 3% to 6.5%, which “would generate substantial revenue from Browns tickets and the additional year-round activities enabled by the enclosed stadium.”

“Significant income tax revenue from player and staff salaries, alongside development-generated labor and parking tax, will also contribute to the project’s financial impact and be pledged toward funding project costs,” the Haslams added.

The Haslam Sports Group emphasized it is not requesting sales tax assistance from the county in its plan, due to the existing proposal to allocate a 40-year increase to help finance the $900 million Central Service Campus featuring a new jail in Garfield Heights.

According to the HSG plan, the additional $600 million from public funds would be sourced from the state of Ohio “in a new model that necessitates significant private investment and leverages substantial new direct taxes generated within the project site to repay the bonds.”

“We’ve worked to identify the net new incremental state income, sales, and commercial activity taxes from the project which will not only cover the bond repayments but will also generate considerable excess for the State,” the group noted.

Regarding Governor Mike DeWine’s recent proposal to raise the sports gaming tax in Ohio to 40% to aid stadium projects statewide, the Haslams indicated that, while they were not involved in the discussions, they appreciate DeWine’s ingenuity and “look forward to learning more about the plan while continuing to push our own proposal for state-level support for this transformative project.”

Furthermore, the Haslam Sports Group asserts that its plan addresses “future capital repair needs.”

“Especially if the County engages in the project and encompasses the Brook Park revenue streams, the significant excess local tax revenues generated will adequately cover debt service on the bonds, capital repairs (estimated at approximately $400 million in future dollars over the 30-year lease), and other public needs.”

The HSG claims its experts estimate an annual economic impact of $1.3 billion from the stadium and the adjacent mixed-use development.

“In total, the project, along with Browns operations, is projected to generate approximately $6.3 billion in fiscal impact/tax revenues over the 30-year lease’s duration. Locally, the project, in conjunction with the proposed County taxes on visitors and a possible extension of the sin tax, is expected to create about $3.4 billion in fiscal impact/tax revenues,” HSG added.

The Haslams also propose that their funding plan will produce “significant excess new revenues over time” that might be allocated to support other vital projects, such as the development of the downtown Cleveland lakefront and the modernization of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

The Haslams aim to commence construction on the new facility within a year, thus requiring the support of the city of Brook Park, Cuyahoga County, and the state of Ohio by this June.

On Thursday, Jimmy Haslam stated that constructing a domed stadium at Burke Lakefront Airport is not feasible due to the excessive costs it would incur and the uncertainties surrounding the land and potential airport closure.

The Haslams described the proposed renovations of the existing Huntington Bank Field on the lakefront as a temporary solution that would not deliver the same economic benefits.

With the Browns’ lease at Huntington Bank Field expiring in 2028, the Haslams revealed in March 2024 that they were down to two options for their future stadium location: a $1 billion renovation of the current downtown stadium or a new domed stadium outside the city at double the expense. Shortly thereafter, news surfaced that the Haslams had secured options on over 170 acres of land in Brook Park near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

On August 1, in what the city called “a competitive deal to maintain the Cleveland Browns at their current stadium,” Mayor Justin Bibb proposed a $461 million financing plan to the Haslams for renovating the 25-year-old venue, which included a 30-year lease agreement.

Six days later, the Haslam Sports Group released renderings and a video illustrating what a domed stadium complex in Brook Park might look like. In a letter, HSG Chief Operating Officer Dave Jenkins referred to the concept of constructing a $2.4 billion dome in Brook Park as a “transformational option” that would create “a modern, dynamic, world-class venue enhancing the fan experience and enabling the State of Ohio and our region to compete for significant global events all year round. Much like other Midwest markets, this proposed domed stadium would catalyze substantial growth in our region.”

Less than a week later, Cuyahoga County leaders responded to the proposal, asserting it “does not make fiscal sense” for taxpayers. County Executive Chris Ronayne encouraged the team to focus on upgrading the current stadium, stating that “any proposal creating an unacceptable risk to the County’s general fund cannot be considered.”

On October 17, the Browns confirmed their intentions to relocate to Brook Park, accompanied by a mixed-use development along with the domed stadium. Team owners contended that renovations to the current stadium would not resolve long-term challenges, emphasizing that a domed stadium would enable them to host major events year-round and boost regional revenue.

During a press conference on the same day, Mayor Bibb expressed his profound disappointment with the Haslam Sports Group’s decision, describing the team’s choice as “frustrating and profoundly disheartening.”

“We have exhausted every single option to keep the Browns in our city without jeopardizing the city’s general revenue,” Bibb stated. “We remain committed to doing everything possible to retain the Browns in Cleveland if Brook Park is not a viable alternative.”

One week following the announcement, the Browns filed a federal lawsuit seeking a judge’s declaration that the Modell Law, which requires any Ohio team playing in a tax-supported facility to offer the city the option to purchase the team, is unconstitutional. Yost later filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the city, which was granted. More recently, both Yost and the city of Cleveland filed motions to challenge the Browns’ lawsuit.

In November, a study commissioned by the city of Cleveland found that Brook Park was not a viable option for the team, indicating that Brook Park would struggle to attract residents and retailers, and highlighted that Cleveland could lose $30 million in economic activity and $11 million in tax revenue without a stadium.

Conversely, a competing study commissioned by the Haslam Sports Group suggested that while moving would eliminate snowy home games, the Brook Park site could create nearly 5,400 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in annual economic activity for Cuyahoga County.