Browns owners seeking either $1B taxpayer-funded stadium or maybe “significant” renovations, one of those

It’s been quite a year already for NFL teams demanding huge public subsidies for new or renovated stadiums, what with the Buffalo Bills getting $1 billion, the Baltimore Ravens getting $600 million the very next day, and the Tennessee Titans seemingly lined up to be next. (The Washington Commanders didn’t fare as well, but that’s because they’re owned by a guy who’s currently ducking testifying in a Congressional investigation, which has bad optics, as the kids today say.) And with state legislative sessions having wound down, that’s probably it for this year for NFL owners demanding billion-dollar—

According to two sources close to the Cleveland Browns and its owner the Haslam Sports Group, the National Football League (NFL) team is leaning toward building a new stadium versus renovating the existing FirstEnergy Stadium. And the sources say the team already has at least two sites picked out as options for a new stadium that will likely cost in excess of $1 billion.

The news came from an unlikely source: NEOtrans, a blog written by Ohio railroad writer Ken Prendergast. Given that the story is cited to unnamed sources, this would normally be enough to raise suspicions.

The team’s response, meanwhile, has only served to cloud its intentions in additional murk. Browns VP Peter John-Baptiste initially told Prendergast he was merely “a little too far out in front of the story,” which initially made it sound like there was at least some fire behind the smoke. Yesterday, however John-Baptiste switched gears, saying what the team really wants is a pricey renovation, how could anyone have ever thought otherwise:

Contrary to recent speculation, a recent feasibility study we launched does not contemplate a new stadium or showcase new stadium sites. A significant stadium renovation at our current site is the premise of the study.

That’s more in line with past scuttlebutt, which focused mostly on a $200 million state-funded ramp to connect the current stadium with downtown. John-Baptiste doubled down on that in yesterday’s statement, saying the team’s “vision” is “centered on an extensive land bridge,” and talking up all the “365-destination major development opportunities” that could be built around the existing stadium, on public land but presumably to the profit of team owner Jimmy Haslam.

Prendergast likewise talks up development on the current stadium site, but with the stadium moving elsewhere, possibly the site of the city’s Main Post Office, which would presumably need to be relocated somewhere els. As for the cost of all this musical-chairs construction, his report is somewhat hazy: He writes that redeveloping the current stadium site “would help fund a significant portion of the cost of a new stadium,” but adds that “some public funding will be involved.” (No source at all cited on that, nor specifics on how development on a city-owned site would be funneled toward Browns construction costs.) Cleveland.com, which reported on Prendergast’s claims without independently confirming them, wrote that a new stadium is “likely to come at significant taxpayer expense,” likewise without sourcing or specifics.

As for why Haslam would want to build a whole new stadium when the old one isn’t even 23 years old yet, Prendergast cites his sources as saying “the Haslams are not happy with the condition of the existing stadium and how poorly it is aging. Furthermore, the sources contend that the stadium was poorly built and the expense necessary to rebuild and add a roof to it approaches the cost of a new stadium.” That seems mildly incredible — we’ve seen inflated renovation figures before as a way to try to steer elected officials toward a whole new building — but far be it from me to argue with anonymous people “close to” the team.

All of this smells a whole lot like a trial balloon: Leak some vague plans to a reporter, neither confirm nor deny them in public, then see what the reaction is. Before he switched gears to declaring that the team wasn’t looking at building a new stadium, John-Baptiste told Cleveland.com that the team is conducting “feasibility studies on what a new stadium could look like,” with a report due out next year — whether this leak was intentional or not, by then it should shake loose a lot of opinions from elected officials and the public on whether spending up to a billion dollars on a new stadium to replace a 23-year-old one built at huge public expense is reasonable.

Meanwhile, let’s take a moment to appreciate that it was the earliest plans for the current Browns stadium that, 27 years ago, helped spur Joanna Cagan and I to begin researching what ultimately became our book. At that time, Cleveland’s schools had just been placed in receivership for lack of funds; today, almost half of the city’s children live in poverty. I don’t want to be a giant bummer, but I think this whole “expose it by writing about it and it’ll get better” thing may not be going so well.