C&P Newswire
CLEVELAND, Ohio — Tensions boiled over Monday as Cleveland City Council publicly challenged Mayor Justin Bibb’s newly announced $100 million deal with Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, questioning whether the city is truly coming out ahead.
The agreement, announced on October 13, 2025, resolves longstanding lawsuits between the city and the Haslam Sports Group. Under the settlement, the Haslams will pay Cleveland $25 million upfront by December 1, fund the demolition of the downtown Huntington Bank Field, and provide tens of millions more over the next 15 years for community benefits and lakefront redevelopment.
But some members of City Council are far from sold. At a marathon three-hour hearing, Councilman Mike Polensek called the deal a raw deal for taxpayers: “At the end of this deal we wind up with nothing,” he said.
Brian Kazy, another vocal critic, went further — accusing the mayor of abandoning the city’s interests in favor of the Browns. Kazy told reporters Bibb had “lied with the dogs … and now has fleas.” He even floated a symbolic — and provocative — resolution: demanding that owner Jimmy Haslam drop the “Cleveland” name and instead call the franchise the “Brook Park Browns.”
Council President Blaine Griffin, who is leading the review, has said this is the public’s opportunity to get a full breakdown of the deal, especially around how the $100 million will be spent. Several council members have pushed the administration to provide a full accounting of how much Cleveland has spent supporting the Browns over the years — and whether this payout adequately compensates for that history.
Mayor Bibb defended the agreement vigorously. He told council members he negotiated “like hell” but that he believed the city had little leverage — warning that without a deal, the Browns might leave downtown entirely after their lease expires in 2028. Bibb argued that the settlement protects Cleveland taxpayers more than a drawn-out legal battle would, particularly given changes in state law and financial realities.
Law Director Mark Griffin echoed those concerns, saying that even if the city had won the lawsuits, there was no guarantee the Browns would remain after 2028. “There was no way for us to force them to stay in Cleveland beyond 2029,” he said.
Still, council members worry about the long-term consequences: Kris Harsh raised the specter that working-class Clevelanders may be shut out of future Browns games if ticket prices rise under a new stadium in Brook Park.
Others expressed a deeper sense of loss. Kazy, balking at the downtown Browns departure, said, “Common sense tells you, let her go … but your heart tells you … that team belongs in the City of Cleveland.”
The settlement must now be approved by City Council — with a deadline looming on November 24. If approval doesn’t come through, the $25 million initial payment could be delayed, according to city officials.
In the meantime, some lawsuits remain active, including a city suit under the Modell Law and others related to the team’s lease.
As the debate continues, Clevelanders are left asking whether the $100 million is a genuine win — or a concession that comes at too steep a cost for the soul of the city.
